Wednesday, 14 August 2024

Motions

Housing

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (15:40): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Victorian Labor government has recently signed a $100 million contract with John Holland for the demolition of five public housing towers including three in North Melbourne and Flemington;

(b) hundreds of residents remain living at these three public housing tower sites, many of whom do not want to leave their homes and communities;

(2) acknowledges that the demolition contracts have been signed without residents receiving any commitment from the government about their right of return to public housing;

(3) recognises that Labor:

(a) has signed these demolition contracts without any plan for what happens next or any guarantee that public housing will be rebuilt at each site, in order to forcibly evict residents from their homes using a legal pathway;

(b) has used this tactic to evict public housing residents before, including at Barak Beacon where residents fought the government to remain in their homes but were eventually evicted;

(c) is treating public housing residents in these high-rise estates with contempt which has left many residents feeling deeply distressed about their future;

(4) notes with concern residents’ reports that they have felt pressured and coerced to accept the limited alternative housing options provided by Homes Victoria, leaving residents fearful that they will face homelessness if they do not accept the offer from the government;

and calls for a moratorium on evictions of residents from these towers so residents cannot be forced to move out of their homes against their will.

The motion asks this house to note that the Victorian Labor government has recently signed a $100 million contract with John Holland for the demolition of five public housing towers, including three towers in North Melbourne and Flemington, located at 120 Racecourse Road, Flemington, 12 Holland Court, Flemington, and 33 Alfred Street, North Melbourne. It further notes that hundreds of residents remain living at these three public housing tower sites, many of whom do not want to leave their homes and communities. Two, it acknowledges that the demolition contracts have been signed without residents receiving any commitment from the government about their right of return to public housing. Three, it recognises that Labor has signed these demolition contracts without any plan for what happens next or any guarantee that public housing will be rebuilt at each site, in order to forcibly evict residents from their homes using a legal pathway; recognises that Labor has used this tactic to evict public housing residents before, including at Barak Beacon, where residents fought the government to remain in their homes but eventually were dragged through VCAT and evicted; and recognises that Labor is treating public housing residents in these high-rise estates with contempt and that this treatment has left many residents feeling deeply distressed about their future. Four, it notes with concern residents’ reports that they have felt pressured and coerced to accept the limited alternative housing options provided by Homes Victoria, leaving residents fearful that they will face homelessness if they do not accept the offer from the government. The motion calls for a moratorium on evictions of residents from these towers so residents cannot be forced to move out of their homes against their will.

Over the weekend we heard that the Labor government had signed this $100 million contract with John Holland to demolish the first of the towers they plan to demolish right across Victoria, at Flemington and North Melbourne. What is particularly distressing about these contracts being signed is that the government has no plans for the redevelopment of the sites as yet. No contracts with the developer have been signed, no guarantee that any public housing will be rebuilt at these sites has been provided and no timeline for when people who are living there will be able to return has been provided to residents either. We know that Labor has signed these contracts with one purpose: to forcibly evict residents using a legal pathway that will see people who do not want to leave their homes dragged through VCAT and lengthy legal proceedings. It happened to Margaret Kelly at the Barak Beacon estate last year, and we are about to see the mass eviction of public housing residents across these sites.

We are in the worst housing crisis that Victoria has experienced in decades: 120,000 people are on the waiting list for public housing here in Victoria, and 30,000 people are experiencing homelessness on any given night. Where are the hundreds of people that are being turfed out of their homes meant to go? Into the new homes that apparently are being built through the Big Housing Build that the Victorian Labor government likes to tout? But where are the people that those homes were meant to house going to go if these residents have to go into those homes? Labor is rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. The ship is sinking, and they know it.

Before going any further I want to share the voices of residents directly into this debate. I would like to read a letter that was sent to the minister, with me copied in, a few weeks ago from 13 community groups within the Flemington and North Melbourne housing towers, representing hundreds of residents, including the Multicultural Sudanese Centre, the Eritrean community, the Somali community, the Jeberti community, the Somali women’s group, Young Australian People, the North Melbourne Public Housing Residents Association, United Through Football and the Flemington women’s group. The letter reads as follows:

Dear … Minister …

I write to you urgently on behalf of the Flemington and North Melbourne community, particularly those of us from African countries who have found refuge in Australia. The prospect of being displaced from our homes is causing profound distress and threatens to unravel the very core of our community.

The impact of relocation extends far beyond housing. These high-rise buildings are not just structures; they are the heart of our lives where we have forged friendships, built support networks, and cultivated a sense of belonging. Moving us from this community will sever these vital connections, leaving families isolated and vulnerable, especially our elderly who already struggle with language barriers and rely heavily on local community support.

While we acknowledge the necessity for building repairs or renewal, the proposed alternative of community housing on Victoria Street is wholly inadequate. These units do not meet our needs – they are cramped, lack space for our families and cultural practices, and fail to provide essential privacy and amenities.

Many families have inspected community housing properties at Victoria Street. Large families will need to sell and purchase new furniture to fit the space. We have been told to place our kitchen tables on the balcony, downsize to a smaller fridge, and sell our vehicles. Who is going to pay for all of this?

Some smaller families have considered relocating to community housing on Victoria Street but cannot afford to replace existing furniture.

Public housing, with its distinct policies and affordability, is essential for us as it provides stability and security that community housing cannot guarantee.

Furthermore, the scarcity of public housing exacerbates our concerns. With limited availability, we fear being scattered across areas where we lack necessary support networks and essential services. Where does Homes Victoria plan to relocate us and will there be sufficient parking, especially for women who rely on safe transportation options?

The impact on our cultural identity cannot be overstated. Many of us have fled war-torn countries seeking safety in Australia, and maintaining ties with our families overseas through visits is crucial for our emotional well-being. If we are relocated to community housing, the risk of losing Commonwealth rent assistance when visiting loved ones abroad would create an insurmountable barrier, further isolating us from our families and cultural heritage.

It is imperative that any relocation or demolition plans are immediately halted. The government must engage in meaningful consultation with our community to address these critical issues. We demand clarity on our rights – will we have the right to return to public housing? What will our rent be? These questions must be answered transparently and in writing to alleviate our anxieties.

The Flemington and North Melbourne communities have long supported each other, and any isolation or disconnection will lead to significant social issues impacting generations to come. Parents will lose vital support networks, and children will lose their school communities, which are safe havens for their growth and development.

We were initially assured that relocation would consider our needs and preferences, including moving with family and friends. However, recent interactions with relocation officers have contradicted these assurances, leaving us feeling coerced into accepting inadequate housing offers. The lack of consultation with our community during the planning of these community housing units has exacerbated this issue.

In conclusion, Homes Victoria and the government must take responsibility for rectifying this situation. Immediate action is needed to develop a comprehensive housing strategy that respects our cultural practices, provides adequate space, and ensures affordable housing options that preserve community cohesion and opportunities to stay connected to loved ones.

Time is critical. Please act swiftly and responsibly to address our concerns before irreparable damage is done to our community.

Sincerely …

I thank those residents for voicing their concerns directly to the minister, and I hope the minister has the courtesy to respond directly back to them.

With every step of this process this government has chosen to ignore the voices of public housing residents. They have treated residents like a problem to be solved, and these demolition contracts are their latest response. With this motion we are calling for the government to guarantee they will not forcibly evict any resident at Flemington and North Melbourne at these high-rise towers earmarked for demolition, because that is the grim reality facing hundreds of residents right now. How in good conscience can a government be contemplating evicting public housing residents in the midst of this housing crisis? This housing plan, announced by then Premier Andrews in September last year, has been a disaster from the moment it was announced. It is predicated on demolitions and privatisations that could mean the end of public housing in Victoria, because Labor is retreating from public housing and instead wants to outsource public housing and privatise public land. This plan has always been about property developers making more profits. They were the ones standing around Premier Andrews when he announced this disastrous plan – not the housing experts and certainly not the residents. It was never about the residents, who are set to lose their homes, their communities and their security.

Labor has refused to release the documents or any justification for the decision to demolish the North Melbourne and Flemington towers. They fought against a parliamentary inquiry into the privatisation plan. They have obfuscated and gaslighted the community and us in this chamber at every single turn about what is going on, and they have just shelved another 15 public and community housing projects, instead handing public land to private developers that should be kept to build thousands more public homes. Recently at the Yoorrook Justice Commission, the government’s own department revealed that land is the biggest prohibitive factor to creating more public and community housing, so you have to wonder about Labor’s commitment to solve the housing crisis, when they would rather conduct a fire sale of public land than keep it in public hands for the public homes we know can end homelessness. With all these projects falling over and all the broken promises by the Allan Labor government, what confidence can Victorians have that these towers will not be razed to the ground and the land handed to private developers, who have no interest in rebuilding public or community housing if the government does not require and mandate it? The only promise that Premier Allan seems willing to keep is the promise to demolish thousands of public homes in the midst of a housing crisis.

I urge every member of this place to consider this motion carefully and deeply on behalf of the thousands of residents who are completely distressed, especially after hearing the government has just signed these contracts with no redevelopment plans afoot – with no guarantee that a single public home will be rebuilt at these sites. It is imperative we do everything that we can to give voice to these residents – the voices that the government is trying to diminish and minimise, who are vital to this process. We stand to see one of the biggest mass dislocation and disconnection programs of evictions that we have ever seen in Victoria. We stand on the precipice of communities being completely torn apart from each other, disappearing into the Victorian community, without any care from this government about what happens to their lives next. I implore every member of this Parliament to consider this motion deeply and carefully. If we pass this motion today it will send a very powerful message to this Victorian Labor government that they do not have the permission of this place to evict public housing residents en masse.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:53): I rise to speak on Dr Ratnam’s motion, which is calling for a moratorium on the provision of more social housing in this state. It is calling –

Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, Acting President, the frame of the motion was misrepresented by the member. It is a moratorium on evictions, not a moratorium on social housing. I would bring it back to relevance to the motion before us.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): Continue, Mr Batchelor.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I am sorry that Dr Ratnam does not like listening to the truth. However, the consequences of this motion, which would impose a moratorium, would be to prevent the construction of new social housing in this state. That is exactly what Dr Ratnam is advocating for with this motion, and that is exactly the consequence of the course of action that she seeks this chamber to endorse. If she is unwilling to accept the consequences of her political campaign to stop more social housing being built in this state, I think she needs to take a good hard look at herself and the campaign of disinformation that her party is running in the community, because preventing more social housing – and more public housing – being built in this state is exactly the consequence of this motion.

Dr Ratnam said that this is the worst housing crisis in decades. That is why Labor wants to build more social housing in Victoria, and that is why it is outrageous and disgraceful that the Greens are trying to stand in the way of more social housing being built. But it is not the first time that the Greens have come into this place and campaigned against social housing being built. It is not the first time in this Parliament, let alone prior parliaments, that the Greens have been campaigning against social housing being built. I have not got time, because I have only got another 7½ minutes to go through all of the instances where the Greens have tried to prevent more social housing being built in Victoria. But we can talk about one of them, because Dr Ratnam mentioned it in her motion, and that is at Barak Beacon, where the old walk-up estates have been demolished and are being rebuilt with a 46 per cent increase in the amount of social housing being made available on land that remains in public hands. A 46 per cent increase at Barak Beacon in the amount of social housing being built on land that remains in public hands – that is what the Greens are opposed to. They are opposed to it in Port Melbourne, and they are opposed to it right around the other sites.

They talk a lot about, quite rightly, some of the distress that is being felt by people who have been subjected to a campaign of misinformation, disinformation and fear, which is designed to serve the political interests of Dr Ratnam and her party. But when we actually finish the construction of these new social houses, what we see, as we have seen in Bank Street in Prahran and as we have seen in New Street in Brighton – just to name two places in southern metropolitan Melbourne – is that we have residents moving back into new social housing that is energy efficient, is cheaper to live in and meets modern design and accessibility standards.

In constituency questions today Ms Copsey raised concerns about a resident who has accessibility issues. The design of her current accommodation as a public housing tenant, according to the information presented by Ms Copsey, means that she has difficulty with accessibility in her apartment. What Labor is trying to do is build new homes for people like that, who are residents in accommodation where the state is the landlord, converting their homes from places that are inaccessible, that are not meeting modern design standards and that are not being energy efficient to ones that are.

When we have visited these new developments, as I have done with Minister Shing, I have spoken to people like Deb, who just moved into the new accommodation at New Street in Brighton – a model the Greens oppose. Deb could not believe how great it was, that when she closed the doors to her balcony she could not hear the sounds from outside and that for the first time she was living in a place that was not draughty, had 7-star energy efficiency ratings, was accessible and was close to transport and new community facilities. She thought it was fantastic, and that is the future that Labor wants for more public housing residents and more social housing residents right across Melbourne and right across Victoria.

Dr Ratnam, through this motion, wants us to stop the demolition of towers, including, it seems, two towers that have no-one living in them, because they are not fit for human habitation. They would prefer us to subject residents of the existing towers, who are in accommodation that was built 50 or 60 years ago using construction methods that make renovation and maintenance exceptionally challenging, to failing sewer stacks, as they currently are, and subject them to lifts that break down regularly because of the way that the retrofitting of sprinkler systems interferes with electrical circuitry in the lift wells, such that when sprinklers are triggered the lifts go out, often for days, because of the difficulty in maintaining them. That is the sort of accommodation that Dr Ratnam and the Greens think should be the gold standard for the most vulnerable in our community. They want to stop us fixing these problems, because even if we were not about to rebuild with modern energy efficiency and even if we went down the path that some advocate – including, as I have heard before, the Greens – of just renovating these places, we could not just go in and refurbish and renovate the concrete constructed towers that we have. If we were to do that in any program of refurbishment, as with evidence provided by the CEO of Homes Victoria to the Legal and Social Issues Committee of this Parliament in a public hearing last year – it is on the record; read the transcript. Mr Newport said that even if we were to renovate these properties, we would have to move everyone out, because you cannot drill through the concrete in a way that is safe for people who live next door. Even if you were to go down a path of just trying to renovate these properties, you would need to relocate the residents.

Samantha Ratnam interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Read the evidence provided to the Parliament before you start demanding more. That is what we have – basic physics and construction methodology means that drilling into concrete produces noise that is of unacceptable levels. If Dr Ratnam and the Greens think that forcing people to live through unacceptably noisy and dusty renovations is an acceptable way to behave as a landlord, they are mistaken.

There is a lot more that I could say, but I do not have time. Unfortunately, what we have seen on this week’s episode of ‘Wednesdays in Wills’ is another episode in a campaign of misinformation and of disinformation. The lives of housing residents are being made much more difficult when they have politicians like the Greens seeking to exploit their fears for political gain, and they do it from the basis of misinformation and disinformation. This is not the first time they have done it. This is not the first experience that the community has had with the misinformation and disinformation that has been peddled by the Greens, and sadly, based on their track record, I expect it will not be the last.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:03): I rise to speak on Dr Ratnam’s motion 521 in regard to public housing towers, particularly around the contracts that have been signed for demolition – a $100 million contract with John Holland for the demolition of five public housing towers, including three in North Melbourne and Flemington. I recognise that Labor has signed demolition contracts without any plan for what happens next, or any guarantee that public housing will be rebuilt at each site, in order to forcibly evict residents from their homes using an illegal pathway.

I want to speak on this motion because I, like Dr Ratnam – at least for now for Dr Ratnam – represent the Northern Metropolitan Region, which captures a majority of the public housing towers in question. I, like Mr Welch, engage quite a bit with our multicultural communities, particularly our African and Somalian communities, who have all expressed concern to me about the government’s plans, in particular the way they have gone about consultation for such a large change but also the way in which communication has not been very friendly or direct to CALD communities – communities that might struggle with English.

Let us go through the facts in regard to the contracts. We have had $450 million allocated towards demolition but a $100 million contract with John Holland, so where the other $350 million is going is a good question and something that we have been keen to know. The demolition tender is set to see people forcibly removed. We heard a lot of stuff when this was announced about working with communities and making sure that they were all together, that family units would stay together and that there would be attempts to move them to similar locations. But now we hear of people being moved quite a long way out of town, quite a long way out from where their community is and quite a long way away from where their kids go to school, from where they meet for family barbecues and from where they meet for community gatherings. You can see how the consultation has evolved into a consultold and into a consultation wrecking ball with these demolitions. Where will the 600 forcibly removed families actually go? With no money and no plans to rebuild new towers, how long will families be displaced from their communities? Often they have come from being persecuted in different countries and come to Australia and set up a community and a family life here in the inner north. Now they are being told they have to leave the area, in some ways the only area that they have known, the area that they have found a community in and the area that they have found family in. The consultation has been subpar.

Without money, when will the replacement homes be available? We know that Homes Victoria has only added an extra 492 homes since the Big Housing Build. We know there are 2700 fewer bedrooms despite the billions of dollars spent. Also, I found it quite interesting that the contracts were with John Holland because we know recently that competition experts have actually belled the cat and urged the ACCC to investigate John Holland and the CFMEU limiting the amount that labour hire firms can be used on sites, which distorts competition and causes a huge blowout in regard to taxpayer funds. We need competition to ensure we have efficiency and to ensure we keep costs down, and we are seeing big union bosses and big business consorting together to screw over the taxpayer in state after state. It is not something we want to see; it is something that I will certainly be keeping my eyes on in representing my constituents. I want to thank Dr Ratnam for bringing her motion up to the Legislative Council, and the Liberals and Nationals will be supporting the motion.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:09): I rise today to speak on the motion which has been put forward by Dr Ratnam. We have already ventilated this issue many, many times in this place. It is an important issue and it is an important thing that we should be talking about. What we are actually talking about is a very significant investment in the future of Victoria’s social housing. I have gone through all these arguments many times before, and I am sure I will go through them today and it will make absolutely no difference, because the Greens are hell-bent on using this as a campaign, hell-bent on frightening and intimidating people and spreading all sorts of disinformation when it comes to what we are doing.

In fact it is quite hard to unpack from all the very many corners why this is such a disgraceful motion. Once again it is grandstanding and politicking at the expense of the very people they are purporting to represent. I am drawn once again to discuss the Legal and Social Issues Committee, where I, amongst and with other members in this place, extensively heard from various stakeholders when it came to rental and housing more broadly, but particularly we heard from Homes Victoria. We heard directly about the absolutely squalid conditions that so many people are living in. We heard about the fact that for these current buildings – these ones that the Greens are so desperately trying to save – for every vacancy that comes up they have to go to 10 people before they can actually get someone to accept it, either because people understandably do not want to live in these conditions or they physically cannot, if they are disabled or if they have special requirements. These buildings are not fit for purpose. They are, quite frankly, not habitable, and yet here we have the Greens political party trying to actually say to people who are doing it tough, who are in social or public housing, ‘You do not deserve the same standard of housing that everyone else in Victoria gets.’ That is, frankly, disgraceful. It is an absolute disgrace to come into this place and say that you are representing them when all you are doing is seeking to confine them in these conditions, which are clearly unacceptable and should be unacceptable to all of us.

We have seen take-up rates of these sorts of projects in huge numbers. We have seen 97 per cent of the residents actually taking up these offers. Change is difficult, and I know that, and it absolutely should not be some blasé ‘come in’ and ‘out you go’ sort of situation. It absolutely should be done with tactfulness, with dignity and with respect. I know that Minister Shing is very invested in that as well, and I know that is what a lot of people are reporting back – that that is how they have been treated. There are always going to be some who will still not wish to move. I do understand and I do respect that. But I think it is important to note that what we have here today is the Greens actually saying to the 97 per cent of people who actually do want to better their lives, who actually do want to live in better quality and better condition of housing, ‘You don’t get to’ – because what is in this motion? The word ‘moratorium.’ The Greens want a moratorium on us building the safe, secure and habitable social housing that Victorians deserve. No Victorian deserves to be treated any less than being able to live in a habitable home, but that is exactly what this motion will seek to achieve.

We have heard – and I am sure we will continue to hear from them today – the Greens saying words along the lines of, ‘Well, just retrofit them. Just fix them. Just make them better.’ We could try and do that. It, frankly, would not be very successful. You could spend a lot of money to get a lot of relative improvements, but you would still have some of the functional, core issues – you cannot make floors higher and you cannot do all the other sorts of things. In some cases we also heard examples like the sewer systems overflowing and other very functional issues, very core, structural issues in these buildings, that are causing a lot of these habitability issues. You cannot fix them all. But even if you did do that and you threw all the money in the world at fixing them, what would you have to do? You would have to relocate these people out of those towers in order to do that. It is simply not possible to do so. For the Greens to say otherwise is, frankly, disingenuous; it is outrageous. Ninety-seven per cent of the people have accepted these relocations. We know that they are all guaranteed the opportunity to move back to the new towers once they are built.

I do not for one second underestimate the value of community, of location, of amenity. They are so important to people, especially when they are doing it tough. I note from the tower projects that are already underway that those relocations are actually very close by. In fact some of them, I believe, are across the road. And from what I hear from the early reports, the majority of those who did move to those nearby locations say, ‘No, I’m actually very happy here.’ But everyone has the right to move back to that original site when that tower is rebuilt, when we have the new, modern, up-to-standard, habitable housing – again, the habitable housing that all Victorians deserve. To say that the people in social housing do not deserve to live in habitable housing is disgraceful, and that is the implicit conclusion that you must draw from support of this motion. Because a moratorium on these projects, a moratorium on making these changes, which will of course provide additional housing – we know that there will be a minimum 10 per cent uplift in social housing as a result of these projects – is to say that those people are not important, that the needs of people who for whatever reason are not able to move into these towers as they are – again, 10 offers for every property before one can be taken – are not important, and that is disgraceful.

The way in which this campaign by the Greens has been run is extremely disappointing. I again refer to a speech I gave some time ago in this place in response to a Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry report into rental and housing affordability. I said that growing up I had always, one, explored and, for want of a better word, experimented with different political parties and views. I had always had the sense that whatever the Greens did and whatever actions they might take in here they had always come from a logical point of view. This issue has entirely disproven that to me, because they are not acting in the best interests of people in social housing in Victoria by saying these things, by saying all these things and giving them false hope that these buildings can be magically fixed. They cannot. I genuinely would be curious to know how you do that. How do you make buildings like this fully habitable without requiring people to be relocated? It is just not possible, so for you to be saying this you are basically saying that you support people living in these conditions just because they live in social housing. That is not acceptable to me. It is not acceptable to Minister Shing. I see Ms Terpstra in the room – it is not acceptable to her either. It is not acceptable to the Labor government, because we believe that everyone should have a fair go and equality of opportunity. You do not get a fair go or equality of opportunity if you are starting out in decrepit conditions.

There are a lot of good things about the communities and the cultures of these places, of these towers, and that is a special thing, and it is something that needs to be kept in consideration. I believe it has been kept in consideration, but we do not get anywhere by letting these places become more and more uninhabitable with less and less people being prepared to or even being able to live in them. We do not create strong communities that way. We do not address the housing crisis that way.

We have strong clear plans for building more housing in Victoria, more social housing in Victoria, that responds to the needs of the community. It is indeed a good thing that we have wonderful community-driven organisations, these wonderful local not-for-profits doing that. It is disgraceful, again, to hear these amazing groups doing good work in providing housing to local communities, in many cases to their specific cultural communities, being dismissed as private or a privatisation of social housing. Nothing could be further from the truth. I really hope to one day again be able to say that the Greens, despite all their other faults, at least stand for logic. Right now I cannot say that.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:19): I stand to speak on motion 521, raised by Dr Ratnam. My contribution will just cover a couple of things. One thing we learned through the 1970s and 80s was that putting families and communities into tower blocks actually led to very bad social outcomes generally, and we learned through the 1980s that we should stop doing that and we should start moving into better, more sustainable housing for those who are in need and vulnerable. The only thing that is worse than putting working-class and vulnerable communities into tower blocks, it turns out, is when you go into a working-class area and tear that community apart and disperse them to the winds.

There are some very vivid examples of that. I know of the ones from London in particular, where they went through working-class areas and they said, ‘Well, the great virtue for you is you’re going to have indoor toilets. So we’re going to demolish your whole suburb, and we’ll put you in tower blocks, and how wonderful it will be.’ What we found of course was whole communities were destroyed – the culture and the connections. The kids moved to different schools. People had to go to different sports clubs. All of the customs and the things that made a successful community were destroyed in a vulnerable community. I think we see the same here to some extent in that this community is not going to be moved, it is going to be dispersed to the wind. Certainly I would love to know how many kids are going to new schools as a consequence of this. I would love to know how many kids who are participating and integrating successfully in sports clubs and community groups and Scout groups are now dispersed to the wind and now have to re-establish without the connections that they had. We have gone from a bad, and we are going to a worse.

The bit I just cannot get my head around is this: if we have not already built the alternative accommodation, why are we decanting them in this way? I hear the word ‘misinformation’ and ‘You’re going to stop all housing going on’ – well, we are talking about this particular site, aren’t we? We are not talking about the whole of Victoria, so it is a very disingenuous line of reasoning. Do not decant these people until you have got somewhere for them to go. Continue with all the other building, please – in fact hurry that up. That would be a good idea. No-one is against improving the quality of stock of social housing – no-one. It is a good thing. Let us do it. How about you have those things ready before you start knocking down the ones you have already got when you are in the middle of a housing crisis. It is common sense.

It is interesting – they talked about consultation. There is form on this. It is not just there. The people of Box Hill were consulted about the Suburban Rail Loop, and they said, ‘Maybe you’d have 20-storey buildings coming to your area,’ but lo and behold that turned into 40-storey buildings, and then very shortly later – only a couple of months ago – it is now 50-storey buildings. That was the consultation then. I can well imagine with a vulnerable community in North Melbourne that they used the same practice, the same techniques to drip-feed information – drip, drip, drip. ‘It’s these conditions,’ and suddenly they are in a place they do not want to be.

I do not know if there was misinformation, because they did not articulate it. They just kept saying the word ‘misinformation’. They did not articulate anything. I do not know if there was any misinformation, because you did not actually lay any out other than you have signed a contract in order that you can now legally evict the people who do not want to go. You are telling me the conditions are squalid, yet they do not want to go. When I met with the Somalian community, they did not want to go en masse. In fact to the extent they do not want to go, they will not invite anyone from Labor to any of their events because they are so angry about it, and I can understand that fully. Not even the councillors get a gig anymore up that way. If they are living in supposedly squalor, I have got two questions: how come they do not want to move, and if it is squalor, how come you have allowed it over the last 10 years?

Michael Galea: Ninety-seven per cent do. Did you not understand that? Ninety-seven per cent do. Why do you want to stop them from being able to better their lives?

Richard WELCH: How come you have allowed people to live in squalor if that is your view?

Michael Galea: Why are you so desperate to support a Greens motion?

Richard WELCH: I am not. I am very –

Michael Galea: What sort of deal have you done?

Richard WELCH: If there is misinformation, why did you not explain what it was? Anyone standing here objectively cannot make sense of what you are saying, because there are people in housing now that you are going to disperse to the winds. You are going to knock down a building before you have got any other buildings to put them into. It does not make sense. Let us call it the pub test – it does not cover it. If you talk to anyone in the street, it does not make sense. In the meantime you have not actually added any residences. You have not added any bedrooms.

What this reflects of course is the haphazard, chaotic manner in which this government manages any project of scale. With any project of scale, they are chaotic and incompetent. It defies comprehension to me as, let us say, a relatively new member. You look behind the curtain of politics and you wonder why people scratch their heads at what this government does. Well, here it is writ large: ‘Let’s move them out, but we haven’t got anywhere for them to go and we are in the middle of a housing crisis.’ It is insane. We are signing contracts and committing people. I will leave my contribution there in somewhat of an air of confusion –

Samantha Ratnam: Bewilderment.

Richard WELCH: Bewilderment, but perhaps not surprise.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Thank you, Mr Welch. Just before we start, contributions are meant to go through the Chair. There was a three-way yelling match going there, which is not how it is meant to work. If you wish to interject, that is fine. But let us just try and do it in as orderly a manner as we can.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:26): I rise to speak on the motion in Dr Ratnam’s name about the redevelopment of the public housing towers. There are a number of central themes that are contained in this motion, and obviously part of it is the demolition of five public housing towers, including three in North Melbourne and Flemington. It is about residents and what is going to happen to them as a consequence of the demolition but also the redevelopment and rebuilding of those public housing towers. It acknowledges that contracts have been signed without residents receiving any commitment from the government. I am going to address some of these points, and I have had the benefit of listening to what Mr Welch said over there as well. Obviously I hope you listen to the contribution, because what you just said bewilders me. If you were listening to anything that anyone said here – through you, Acting President – you would understand that there are answers to the questions that have been put on record by other speakers. Then there is a bunch of rubbish here about what Labor is alleged to have done, so I am going to provide some facts on the record for this as well.

What I find particularly distasteful about this motion is that there are people at the heart of this motion who are being provided housing by the state Labor government. This is something that Labor governments do. We have for many, many years – for decades in fact – provided public housing for people who are in need. I find it particularly distasteful and disingenuous that the Greens continue to peddle misinformation and disinformation about their options. I am going to go directly to that and provide some clear answers to rebut many of the things that are contained in this motion. It is a pretty sad state of affairs when you see a political party, like the Greens, using vulnerable people just to peddle their own twisted agenda about what they allege and peddle as disinformation around public, social and affordable housing.

Let us go to the facts. Melbourne’s high-rise public housing towers are nearing the end of their useful life and are no longer providing a standard of living renters deserve. Any tenant in a public housing facility deserves a good standard of living, the same standard that anyone in this chamber or outside, who might walk down Spring Street, is entitled to. That includes heating and cooling. That includes buildings that are fit for purpose, that retain heat and that repel heat when it is hot – appropriate standards of living. I might say that Minister Shing and I visited some brand new housing that we delivered in Croydon – 137 public housing units, I believe – and they are fantastic. The residents there are very happy. But they are new; they are not old. They have not reached the end of their life. How do we know that these towers have reached the end of their life? Because engineers have told us that – experts, people who are actually qualified and know what they are talking about. We listened to the experts and we said, ‘Okay, these towers have reached the end of their useful life.’ The towers provided safe homes for renters for more than 50 years, but in recent years building faults and breakdowns have become more common, causing frequent disruptions to residents’ comfort and safety.

When you rent a place, you are entitled to quiet enjoyment. But if things keep breaking down and are in disrepair and it becomes clear to the owners of that place that it is going to cost more, then you might have to take stronger action around the longevity of that property. This is what has happened in the case of these towers. They are 50 years old, so they fail against modern standards for noise, sustainability, energy efficiency, ventilation, private open space, seismic standards, accessibility and minimum amenity. If we listen to the disinformation that is contained in Dr Ratnam’s motion, are we meant to just keep those people in that standard of living and in accommodation that is clearly not fit for modern standards? That is what this motion wants us to do – to keep people in substandard accommodation. That is not what the Labor government is about. We want to make sure that people in our public housing facilities have the best and most appropriate standards of living that we can offer them and that any other person should be entitled to enjoy.

The underlying construction of these buildings also prevents significant modifications and the ability to move walls, doorways and corridors because, guess what, they are made out of concrete – a bit of a problem. They cannot meet modern disability and accessibility standards. Just as an example, I have been to places that have very narrow corridors because in the 1970s people did not think about modern disability standards. Now corridors are required to be wider to take wheelchairs. The towers do not meet those standards. They were built between 1958 and 1975; they were constructed using a unique panel-construction method that is different to conventional high-rise construction. Whilst it was very innovative at the time, the method prevents major alterations, as I said, required to meet modern expectations. Independent advice from structural engineers and from asset and facilities management consultants estimated it would cost $2.3 billion over 20 years just to keep the towers in a habitable condition. That did not make sense. We cannot win here on this side of the chamber, because if we did that, we would be wasting money, and if we are doing this, we are still wasting money. The hypocrisy and the disingenuousness about the debate around this motion is really, really clear.

It was only a couple of months ago that an engineering team was engaged to inspect a sewer leak at the property on the 15th floor of Park Towers. Three tenancies – seven people in total – were required to relocate as a result of the emerging issue. That is a pretty significant disruption to your life, a sewer problem. No-one wants that. We had to relocate people to get that fixed.

We are committed to providing homes for people that are modern, comfortable, private, energy efficient and well located. The redevelopment of the 44 public high-rise towers will benefit Victorians for decades to come and will increase social housing across the sites by at least 10 per cent. Again, this is more disinformation from those down there on the Greens benches, and the Libs just want to kick us as well; it suits you right now because you are doing deals with them.

Let us quickly, in the 3 minutes that I have left, talk about the relocation process. Minister Shing reiterated this this week when a question was asked in this chamber about relocation, in question time. Homes Victoria has had individual meetings with 98 per cent of the 484 households that were residing at the North Melbourne and Flemington towers. As of 9 August 2024, 96 per cent of all households have submitted a housing application to outline their housing needs, with 70 per cent expressing a preference to remain within their community and in the immediate area. It is quite a different story that is being peddled in the disinformation that is contained in the motion. Using vulnerable people to politically pointscore is a disgraceful act, because what we know and the work that the department has done tells a very different story.

A member interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: It is incorrect. As of 3 August 2024, 124 households have moved and a further 106 households are either matched to an alternative property or have accepted a property that meets their household eligibility and need requirements. Eighty-eight households have relocated to new homes in the immediate area – so to your point, no-one has been disrupted around sporting clubs and schools – at Victoria Street, Flemington, managed by Community Housing Limited. That organisation has done a power of work to make sure that these people’s needs are met. I only have a minute and a half left, but it is pretty important that I get these things on the record because it is very disappointing again to see the Greens and the Liberals opposite using vulnerable people to politically pointscore. The Allan Labor government understands and will take as much care as we can to make sure that these people get housing that is appropriate for their needs and that their needs are met and catered for.

Relocation appointments usually take between 30 minutes and 1 hour, and we make sure we go through a long process to ensure that their needs are met. Renters can seek support from friends and family or a representative of the Victorian Public Tenants Association or Tenants Victoria, a community legal organisation. They can have further assistance at those meetings if they wish, at their insistence. We have no problem with that. It is quite a different story to what is being told opposite and on the Greens benches. The Homes Victoria relocation team will offer renters an interpreter when they book the appointment as well, so again, outrageous disinformation being peddled by the Greens. Cohealth are also working alongside the department’s relocation support team to ensure renters have access to the support they need. The assigned relocation team member will talk with household members to understand their housing and support needs, as the information is used to complete a relocation application form. We take as much care as is needed and is absolutely possible.

There is so much more that I could say about this, but again, it is very disappointing to hear the Greens peddling disinformation and continuing to use vulnerable Victorians in this way as a political football. This motion should be rejected.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:36): I will start my contribution on the motion put forward by Dr Ratnam by opposing it as a disingenuous and opportunistic motion. For me, I am really frustrated, as somebody who knows these residents, that this motion is before us. I know that some things are definitely shaping this motion, including aspirations for office in another place in another state. I need to start by saying that Minister Shing is here, and I am glad she is when I say that she is doing a really outstanding job as Minister for Housing. This has been demonstrated in so many ways, including an extension of public and private invitations to Dr Ratnam and any members of this place for a briefing on the issues that have been raised. Those invitations have been discussed in question time time and time again. I would be happy to go to Hansard and find them, because I know that those invitations have been declined.

Perhaps it is best that I speak to some facts. The fact is that the high-rise public housing towers that we are speaking of in the motion have provided safe homes for residents for more than 50 years. These buildings were constructed between 1958 and 1975 using the best innovations of the time and techniques that delivered what renters needed at the time. But these buildings are no longer fit for purpose. Since their construction the needs and expectations of renters have changed, and the buildings frankly are just not keeping pace. They do not meet contemporary standards for noise, for energy efficiency, for accessibility or for private space availability. There are building faults and breakdowns. They have become more common, I know because I get the calls, and they are really a growing concern for residents’ safety. The design of the buildings also prevents modifications such as moving doors, walls and corridors to meet modern accessibility requirements. There are so many examples that come to mind. I am thinking about families, I am thinking about people that while staying there have acquired a disability and find that living there is incredibly challenging. I know that the team at Homes Victoria work really hard to find new homes where required, but the truth is that those towers have seen better days.

I will give you a really specific example. Troy at Park Towers spoke to me about the sewers and he spoke to me about the community rooms. He has spoken to me about public space, he has spoken to me about safety. There are so many headaches for renters because of really outdated building design. The team have been in there, whether they are experts or engineers and all sorts, looking into what started as a simple issue but has grown in complexity. It has required tenants to move – three tenants required relocation. There were a number of apartments that were affected by leaks and corrosion in the sewer stack, and a further eight apartments in the same area needed preventative work to avoid the problem spreading further.

Just to be really clear, I understand that folks think that there is some sort of magic pill that we can take and we can retrofit them and that can happen overnight with the flick of a switch, and the truth is that that just cannot be done. Incidents like that at Park Towers are not isolated. They are happening right across our towers, including to folks in Northern Metropolitan Region. I know that they love their homes. I know when they speak to me that they love their communities and what they have created there. But it is becoming increasingly clear to them that their towers are just not up to scratch. What they see around them is new places being built, new places that are energy efficient, new places that are accessible, new places that have open space, new places that meet 7-star energy efficiency standards. What they see going up around them are places where they too want to live. That is why they are telling me that they deserve better and that they want it. That is what we are delivering with our housing renewal program. I know that advice from independent structural engineers says that it will cost over $2 billion over the next 20 years to keep these towers in a basic, habitable condition, and frankly these renters deserve better. Neither renters nor the government think it is good enough, and I am with them.

The Allan Labor government is committed to providing high-standard homes that are modern. They are comfortable, they are private, they are energy efficient, they are well located and they are suitable for families. Our plan to develop 44 public high-rise towers will benefit Victorians for many decades to come and increase social housing across the sites by at least 10 per cent. The fact of the matter is that we cannot deliver these huge improvements while people still live there. Anyone who has ever lived next to a construction site can only imagine how challenging it would be living next to a high-rise construction site. My goodness. It is not practical, it is not safe and it is not going to be quick either, let me be frank. We would not expect people in private rentals to continue living onsite while the landlord carries out massive renovations. I just do not understand why we would expect people in public housing to be subject to these conditions. They deserve what I said before: energy efficient private modern homes. I just do not think that I could ever agree with a two-tier system where residents must risk their safety but private renters do not. I just do not agree with it. So we need some residents to relocate. It is as simple as that.

Firstly, let us be very clear: residents relocating from the towers first and foremost have the right to return to the estate they initially moved from when it is rebuilt. Many have let us know that, and if there is a unit available which meets their accessibility and accommodation requirements, residents of the old building will be allocated a home in the new building. This is a guarantee which has been communicated to residents time and time again. I know because I myself have delivered those messages. I could not be clearer on the doors, and I know that Homes Victoria are the same. We also, when it comes to this motion, are completely committed to embracing a residents- and community-first model, developing a deep understanding of each and every renter’s housing and social support needs and their connections to the local community. I am very clear about the fact that Homes Victoria are doing everything they can. Individual meetings have been held with 98 per cent of the 484 households in North Melbourne and Flemington towers. As of 9 August, 96 per cent of those households have made submissions about their housing needs and 70 per cent of those have indicated their desire to remain in the local community. As of 3 August, 124 of those households have moved from those complexes and a further 106 were either matched to another property or have accepted a property that meets their requirements. I think that is wonderful news, and 88 households have actually relocated to houses in the immediate vicinity at Victoria Street, Flemington.

We are collaborating with residents. We are not coercing them, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach that this motion seems to wish we had. This is why I am particularly disappointed that our approach has been described as contemptuous. You see, every time a resident relocates, they are scheduled an appointment with support services who explain the relocation process. They explain their rights. They can be accompanied by family and friends, a representative from the Victorian Public Tenants Association or Tenants Victoria or a legal representative, and they also have access to an interpreter. These relocation officers are out and about. They know these communities and are very much driven by what is best for them and their families.

I know that this will come up time and time again, and so with the time that I have left can I continue to thank Harriet Shing for her incredible leadership on this.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (16:46): I too rise to oppose this Greens motion on the public housing towers. We have heard a lot of contributions. There are a number of points I would like to pick up on, and I will do so as I go through my notes. We know that the housing towers in Melbourne are reaching the end of their useful life. I have got some other notes detailing that, which I want to pick up as I go. I think we want to see renters living in homes. We want to see our public housing tenants, our social housing tenants – anybody, including people who buy a home, people that own a home – living somewhere where they are comfortable, where there is energy efficiency that results in them having cheaper power bills, where there are not draughts coming through resulting in them having more expensive power bills or lesser health outcomes, where it is soundproof, where they can get a good night’s sleep and where they can find relaxation and comfort. We know that these towers have provided homes to people for 50-plus years, but it is increasingly difficult to keep these buildings going with bolts and breakdowns. This becomes more common, which becomes a safety issue. We should not have safety becoming an issue due to ageing towers, so the desire to delay, stop or put a moratorium on the important work of getting on and building new housing is simply inappropriate, and potentially I could use stronger language than that.

The current buildings – I have already mentioned noise, energy, ventilation, open space, seismic standards, accessibility and minimum amenity. Mr Batchelor commented on accessibility, and those accessibility standards are something that particularly people on this side have fought very hard for over a long period of time. We should be getting on with delivering new buildings that deliver all the things I have just outlined and ensuring that tenants can be in these buildings.

We have already talked about construction today. Construction is a difficult place to work in, let alone live in – the dust, the noise, the dangers that come with it. We have heard today how it is one of the most dangerous sectors to work in in our state, so to be living in, near or around construction is not something that we should be pushing on anybody, and we certainly should not be pushing it from a place of political motivation. I think over the years various people who align themselves with the Greens have fought for good things, but we have also seen over the years various people in the Greens take a political tack on certain issues that they simply should not because they are too important to be used as political footballs. This issue is one of those – it is absolutely one of those. I mentioned before the age of the towers, the time they were designed and the time they were constructed. They are not fit for today. Independent advice from structural engineers and from an asset and facilities management consultant estimated it would cost $2.3 billion over 20 years just to keep the towers in a habitable condition.

I also just want to briefly turn to the Legal and Social Issues Committee report that came out last November and just touch on some of the words briefly from Homes Victoria CEO Simon Newport, who said:

The … towers are prone to a number of issues, certainly inadequate elevators in terms of just not enough realistically for people to use. They have been retrofitted with sprinkler systems. Obviously when they were first designed they did not have sprinkler systems – fire suppression systems. They have been put in, but the nature of the building is that the elevator shafts sit below ground level so whenever a sprinkler system is tripped the elevator pit fills with water, short-circuits the control board and then the elevators are out of action for some time – 24 to 48 hours …

The reason why we talk about new construction being able to be constructed from the ground up fit for purpose is exactly so we can meet our current-day standards and so we are not trying to retrofit something in – something that is people’s homes. We are not talking about business premises that might be used for a certain amount of hours of the day and being able to manoeuvre around their use; these are people’s homes. I absolutely stand here in opposition to this motion, and I support the work of the government. I will leave my comments there.

Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:52): I rise to contribute some comments to the motion before us today moved by my colleague Dr Ratnam, noting a range of points, but primarily the focus is a moratorium on forced evictions of residents in the listed sites, as evident in the motion itself. It has been quite bizarre to listen to several government members from the Labor Party twisting and contorting themselves into knots to try and explain this disastrous proposal that has been put before the Victorian people under the former Premier Daniel Andrews. What we are looking at, as prefaced by my colleague and as many in the community have noted, is destruction – wholesale – of public housing as we know it in this state.

I have heard scant commentary using the term ‘public housing’ in this debate. I have heard lots about social housing, which as noted by this government is a part of the continuum – a very important part of the continuum. But public homes are an important thing for everyone. They are a public good and a public service to be maintained by government. It feels like a bit of a pattern that we have seen, where something that is to be maintained and operated by, and is accountable through, government – public housing, a public good, a public service – is allowed to fall into disrepair. All of the things that have been noted by government members and all of the issues, structurally or otherwise, with these sites are things to be maintained and serviced by a government respecting the wishes and needs of constituents. What happens is instead we see these things are left – neglected – to fall into disrepair and are then used in an argument to privatise and destroy these sites. It has been, again, quite bizarre, the level of focus that the government – Labor members – have attempted, to indicate as if what is being proposed is solely in service of the residents of these sites when my colleague has personally read out the words of residents from these towers to this place, and those have been entirely disregarded by the government members.

The thought that those have been spun – the only people spinning words of residents in this place are the members of this Labor government. The residents themselves are the ones who are coming to us and coming to many people within this chamber, saying they have no intention of leaving homes that they have lived in for many years. They are saying that absolutely clearly. The idea that people are begging to leave their homes – I might put a view to this chamber, for example. If it were truly the view of this Labor government that the residents of these towers were their focus, that that was a priority in this conversation, then why have we not seen new homes being built in places that people want to live and that people are then offered the chance to move into at these sites, that people could choose if they wanted to? Instead, in point (4) of this motion we have noted with concern residents’ reports – reports from the residents themselves – that they have felt pressured and coerced into accepting the limited alternative housing options provided by Homes Victoria, leaving residents fearful that they will face homelessness if they do not accept the offer from this Labor government.

We heard earlier commentary from multiple members about comments from the CEO of Homes Victoria through the Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into housing in the previous calendar year. As someone on that committee, I might speak a bit further to the comments that the CEO made. The CEO referred to the idea of renovating and retrofitting the tower sites as ‘putting lipstick on a pig’. It was absolutely disgusting, such a comment being made about the homes of people who live in these towers – their homes for years. Lipstick on a pig? Is that the level of disdain with which people within this government, within government departments, would view people who live in public housing? Honestly, the moment that it was said my stomach just sank. It was one of the most disgraceful things that I have heard from any public servant in the period that I have been serving within this Parliament.

There are examples within my own electorate. I have noted multiple times within this place where a pitch had been put by this government – ‘We’ll knock down existing public housing on this site. We will, under the ground lease model,’ or whichever model, ‘build new homes for people to live in.’ There was an instance I raised not that long ago in this place where that site will sit vacant for 10 years, with nothing built on that site. As it currently stands, when is the shovel hitting the ground? It might be completed by 2027, after the next election. For 10 years the site will be sitting vacant when it was originally dreamed of as a policy for new homes to be offered to people who need them. It is honestly disgraceful. Time and time again I raise instances within this place about how many social homes, how many public homes, are to be built on sites that have been demolished – or ‘redeveloped’ as the government calls it. Yet time and time again what we will see prioritised is private housing at market price for people who need alternate options.

One side comment I will also make is with regard to interpreting. I have met with a series of interpreters and people working in that space quite recently, and they have raised with me, across a variety of government departments, concern about the level of service that is offered and the quality of services that are provided to people who need those services. The idea that those provisions that are being given to public housing residents are adequate for them to be able to actively advocate on their own behalf in these conversations – collaborations, as it has been put – I do view with a degree of scepticism. It is important that this is actually a genuine offer for people to move into a home that is fit for their needs as opposed to people being physically coerced out of the homes that they are living in. That is an absolutely disgraceful thought, and we have heard time and time again where that has occurred.

I will leave my commentary with this. Time and time again Labor members come before this place with respect to this issue of public housing – again, barely mentioned by them; it is more social values instead – and they will say ‘disinformation’, ‘misinformation’. It is as if you could say the words infinite times and make them true. Yet time and time again we do not see the documents – we do not see the evidence that this is the case. It is as if you can say it and say it and say it and the community will one day believe it. The community sees differently. Shame on this Labor government.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (16:59): What we have today is a motion that is being put ostensibly to require people in some of the most vulnerable parts of our community, whether that relates to access to information, to an asymmetry around financial means or to a number of the barriers and challenges that are attendant in life where there are often complex decision-making processes, to be called upon not to be able to leave their accommodation – their homes – which they know and which they tell us are no longer where they want to be. This motion is saying that, because a moratorium is called, people cannot be moved, whether that is for the purpose of retrofitting or reinforcing or improving buildings to a habitable status or in fact for the purpose of a redevelopment. What we are therefore left with is a motion that says that renters will have, should this motion succeed, no opportunity to be able to relocate from housing which is not fit for purpose nor an opportunity to be able to leave and then return to a retrofitted upgraded tower, which in fact does not actually create a serviceable wonderful place to live in comparison to the sorts of places which our colleagues on the Greens bench call home. But we are saying through this motion and the debate here in the Parliament today that people should not be able to leave, that they should not be able to leave unless everybody says that in fact the development and the repurposing and the enhancement of social housing across the state is accepted by everyone. That is to my mind writ large the most perfect example of the Greens ethos of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

We have here the vast majority of residents across these locations having conversations about what they want, where they want to live, how they want to live, the sorts of aspirations and ambitions that they have for themselves and their families actually being ignored by the Greens for the purpose of a narrative that – and we know from what they have stood up and said today – actually does not have anything to do with people. It is about their very niche conversation on the status of social housing. They ignore – unless it is for a photo opportunity out the front during Homelessness Week when they are all too happy to pose with them – the work of the community housing sector.

Community housing takes people off the waitlist. Community housing is funded by the government. It is for-purpose organisations, Aboriginal-controlled housing organisations, women’s housing, the work of multicultural and multifaith organisations that is being able to provide support to people who need it most. There is so much work going on every single day to help people to have access to information which is accurate and which is consistent. The great tragedy in this is that we do not have an opportunity to talk collectively and in a united fashion as a Parliament about the importance of people’s right to housing which meets their needs. We can trade quotes all we want. To that end, I note the concern and the confusion about the relocations process and all that we are doing to try to assist people around what that means.

People will have a right to return. That is ingrained in the work that we are doing. People will have a careful engagement around how their circumstances change and what they might want to do over time. In addition to that, misinformation should be seen for what it is – something which causes very real damage. And where Dr Ratnam got to her feet and read a letter at the outset, I want to conclude this debate here today by reading from a report of AusAfric Foundation Australia addressing misrepresentation of the Flemington community. It says, amongst other things:

Recent reports have surfaced suggesting that the Flemington community is resistant to relocation and content with the current living conditions. These reports are not only false but also detrimental to the community’s efforts to improve living standards and safety.

…

Contrary to the false reports, the majority of the Flemington community recognizes the need for better living conditions. Overcrowding, lack of safety, and substandard housing have been persistent issues affecting residents’ quality of life.

…

The introduction of new community housing offers promising solutions to address these challenges …

…

It is crucial to dispel misconceptions surrounding the affordability and security of new community housing. Contrary to claims of being expensive and less secure … these housing options provide affordable alternatives with enhanced security measures.

…

The misrepresentation of the Flemington community’s stance on relocation appears to be politically motivated, with the Green Party attempting to gain support by spreading false information.

(Time expired)

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (17:06): I thank everyone who has contributed to this very important debate today. There are a number of points, I think, that need to be clarified, which were quite intentionally distorted through this debate. Let us talk about the most basic premise of the motion before us. Firstly, this motion is about calling for a moratorium on forced evictions of residents against their will. We are not talking about relocations, we are talking about evictions, because this government has form. They have evicted public housing residents before, and we know they can evict public housing residents again, because they hold public housing residents in contempt.

Sheena Watt: On a point of order, Acting President, I just walked in and there was quite a lot of loud noise in the chamber. I would not mind hearing the remarks from Dr Ratnam, because I am sure that I will have some points of order as we continue to hear her representations on the motion before us.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Thank you, Ms Watt. Dr Ratnam to continue.

Samantha RATNAM: Just to restate for the record, this motion is quite specifically asking for a moratorium on evictions – forced evictions, forced removal of people from their homes. We are not talking about relocations, we are talking about evictions, because this government has evicted public housing residents before and they are capable of doing it again. We know that ever since former Premier Andrews announced this plan it has been met with so much concern from the community, and the gravest concern has come from residents themselves. We know those concerns have come from those residents themselves because we have talked to those residents directly. Countless numbers of residents have looked us in the eye and told us with desperation that they wanted us to fight for them. That is what we are doing here today: we are fighting for every resident who wants to stay in their home, who does not want their communities torn apart and who wants to remain living in public housing.

Labor has made claims of disinformation and misinformation. A lot of mental gymnastics have occurred today in this debate, but no alternative information has been provided to somehow provide credibility to their claims of disinformation. I think they believe that if they just say ‘disinformation’ enough, people will believe that there is some disinformation. If you are actually going to make a claim of disinformation, let us actually talk about the accurate information.

For nearly 10 years this Labor government has embarked upon a privatisation program of public housing estates. The Walker Street estate in my electorate, demolished in around 2018 or 2019, sat empty for years. The houses are just going up now, while 120,000 people languish on the waiting list for public housing and while 30,000 people in Victoria experience homelessness on any given night. This Labor government has an agenda of privatisation. These are the policies of Thatcher, and this is what they are proud to spruik to the Victorian people. They have just shelved public and community housing projects across the state, including a site in my electorate in Preston handed over to private developers, land that should have been retained to build hundreds more public homes. They have form handing over public land to private developers. What confidence can Victorians have that Labor will not raze these towers to the ground and hand these sites to private developers? They have done it before; they can do it again. No wonder residents are fearful about their futures. This government cannot utter the words ‘public housing’ anymore, because they do not believe in it anymore. Provide a commitment to rebuild public housing at North Melbourne and Flemington. Not a single public home has been promised at these sites. How can any public housing resident have confidence that they can return to public housing when you will not utter the words ‘public housing’. Public housing can end homelessness in Victoria.

The Greens have a bill before this Parliament to end homelessness, a plan over 10 years to get that waitlist to zero, get homelessness to zero. We are the only party in this place with a plan to build 100,000 public homes over the next decade. That is what ends homelessness, not giving away the public land that we have to private developers to make megaprofits while people go homeless, living in cars, living in tents, not knowing if they will ever have a roof over their head again.

We have been talking to so many residents who are telling us they do not want to be torn away from their communities. I read their words directly to this chamber, and it is incumbent on every one of us to listen to them. Let us not turn our backs on public housing residents. Let us not kick out people at North Melbourne and Flemington like we did Margaret Kelly. We owe it to Margaret. We owe it to everyone at North Melbourne and Flemington. Save public housing in Victoria.

Council divided on motion.

Ayes (18): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Richard Welch

Noes (15): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, David Limbrick, Tom McIntosh, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt

Motion agreed to.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.