Thursday, 12 September 2024

Housing

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:39): (676) My question is for the Minister for Housing. We know that privatisation always costs Victorians a lot of money and we always end up with fewer public assets and worse service delivery. As part of Labor’s plans to privatise Victoria’s public housing estates, almost half a billion dollars has been allocated just for the demolition. We understand that $100 million of this has been awarded to John Holland to undertake the demolition, and at PAEC we were told that $10 million has been earmarked for the relocation. There is absolutely no visibility on how the rest of the $340 million is going to be spent. We are also hearing from residents that multiple outsourced private contractors are being commissioned to engage with them as you move to force residents from their homes and communities. Minister, how much is this government spending on consultants and contractors in your project to demolish and privatise Victoria’s 44 public housing towers?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:40): What a valedictory question from Dr Ratnam. Firstly, community housing is not privatisation, and I want to be really, really clear: when we deliver, as we are delivering, on our record investment in social and affordable housing across the state we will be doing so, as we have done so, in partnership with the community housing sector. This is despite the fact that the Greens and the opposition have consistently opposed the development of social and affordable housing to put roofs over the heads of some of the most vulnerable people in Victoria.

Just today I was at Bills Street in Hawthorn, opposed by the opposition. That was not long after I went to again visit Markham Estate in Ashburton, opposed by the Greens, opposed by the opposition. That was not long after I was at Harvest Square in Brunswick, opposed by the council, opposed by the opposition. While you are in the process of saying why it is that housing should not be delivered for people most in need, we are in the process of building it. When we allocate money towards building that social and affordable housing to continue the work to develop, as we have done already, 9800 homes either completed or in planning or construction, it is for the purpose of providing housing to people who need it most. We make absolutely no apologies for providing fit-for-purpose housing for people most in need –

Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, President, I ask that you direct the minister back to the relevance of the question that I asked, which was quite specific. The minister has not been relevant to the question that I asked. I can repeat it if you would like, but you have asked me not to do that before. It has not been relevant.

Harriet SHING: Further to the point of order, President – Dr Ratnam, your question went on for about 35 seconds. You started from one part of the housing spectrum and continuum, and then you went in kind of a tangential fashion through to the question. When you start with that preamble, I am well within my rights to go to the detail that you set out within it and to counter some of the misinformation that you yet again perpetuate in this place.

Samantha Ratnam: Further to the point of order, President, I understand that you have previously given members or ministers licence to speak to the context in which a question might have been asked, but I seek your guidance about whether that extends to a minister focusing on any specific word they wish to speak to to avoid answering the exact question. If I say the word ‘the’ in a question, can the minister focus just on the word ‘the’ or do they have to actually focus on the content of the question? I asked a very specific question. I think the minister is taking liberties on your previous ruling and is abusing your previous ruling.

The PRESIDENT: I agree with the point of order that a minister should not pick just one word. But I do not think in this instance the minister was just picking one word out of relevance to the question, so I will bring the minister back to the question.

Harriet SHING: As Dr Ratnam referred to on multiple occasions, as she has done on multiple occasions, it is really important to distinguish between the claims being made by the Greens and what we are doing in partnership with community housing providers. This is not, no matter how much the Greens wish for it to be, privatisation. We cannot build housing without builders. We cannot develop sites without development. What we do in that work around the 400 –

Samantha RATNAM: On a point of order, President, with less than 30 seconds to go I ask the minister to stay relevant to the question that I asked. She has refused to stay relevant to the exact question. I can repeat it if she has forgotten it.

The PRESIDENT: There is no need to repeat it. I believe the minister has been relevant.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, when we talk about the development of housing, including the 9800 homes that we are either in the process of building, planning or have completed, this occurs not in a vacuum – not up in your ivory tower or somewhere in Greens headquarters – this happens in reality. $436 million has been allocated towards the development of sites for a tripling of density to make sure that you and your friends in Greens land can have affordable homes and rentals as well as that additional uplift in social housing.

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:46): While you refuse to answer the substance of my question, I think it is important to state for the record that when we talk about the privatisation and outsourcing of public housing estates, your government has announced that two-thirds of each of these public housing estates is going to be for private housing. That is called privatisation. Yes, some community housing, but two-thirds of the estates are going to be for private housing. That is privatisation. We also heard during the PAEC that the government was in the process of engaging KPMG as consultants to develop an investment case for the demolition and privatisation of the towers. Mind you, this investment case seems to have been commissioned after the decision to demolish the towers. This seems to confirm what the community has been thinking since the announcement was made, that the decision to demolish the towers was not grounded in any sound logic or prior feasibility work, but rather that the government is scrambling to justify its decision after the fact. How much is your government paying for consultants KPMG to do this investment case?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:47): What a supplementary. If only we had value from each word that you said in this place, Dr Ratnam. The $436 million that has been allocated in the budget, and it is there for all to see, was discussed at PAEC. And you are right to identify that it did come up at PAEC. What I would suggest, Dr Ratnam, is that you would be well served going to the transcript of PAEC, whereupon there was a question asked. I do not want to paraphrase myself because I do not have the transcript right here in front of me but what I am happy to say is that there was a question about whether the costs associated with delivery of that money would come from within the $436 million that has been allocated. The answer to that question as given by Simon Newport, the CEO of Homes Victoria at the time, was: yes, it would come from within that allocation of $436 million. Again, this is part of the overall package –

Samantha RATNAM: On a point of order, President, I asked a very specific question. The minister has not been relevant to the question that I asked in my supplementary: ‘How much have you paid KPMG?’

The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister has been relevant. I will make a determination maybe later. Under the process that we have, I will consider it later. There have been rulings before in terms of certain details that you would not expect the minister to have on hand during question time that may be better served as questions on notice. The minister has 10 seconds. I will commit to you now before I respond that I will review.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, as I said at the outset, there is $436 million, which includes the work to develop and to engage with communities on what we will be doing to deliver the largest urban renewal project in Australia’s history, and we will continue to do that however you may characterise it.