Thursday, 6 March 2025

Bills

Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (14:06): Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this debate, which has been wideranging and has covered a number of areas which interface not just with rental arrangements and the challenges that both renters and landlords are facing in the current climate of cost-of-living pressures and the availability and affordability of housing stock around Victoria but also the challenges around the importance of consistency, certainty and transparency in the operation of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, the work of VCAT – the role of this quasi-judicial tribunal – and as people were aware from last year’s announcement and as almost every speaker has contemplated in their contributions today the creation of a model for alternative dispute resolution for the purpose of ensuring that, as an alternative to expensive and often complex processes that really do not create circumstances conducive to a level playing field for parties, Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria (RDRV) can as part of the broader remit of VCAT and Consumer Affairs Victoria provide that means by which a relationship might well be able to be preserved between tenant and landlord.

These reforms sit alongside many, many changes that have already been made to the Residential Tenancies Act here in Victoria. Many of those changes have been geared towards harmonising the scheme and the regulatory framework here in Victoria with that of other states, but it has also been important alongside the work to ensure that people can, for example, make minor changes, such as painting a wall or indeed having a pet, that we are also ensuring we have got consistency of approach around the standard and the condition of buildings that people are seeking to call their own as tenants.

We have also seen – and this is something that has received widespread coverage – a situation of increased competition in the rental market, where there has been work to outlaw rental bidding. We have also seen challenges around the offer of increased rent from people who would like to be tenants. As many speakers have outlined, I would imagine many of us have lined up outside a rental property with dozens of others looking for a chance to become a tenant. People arrive with all sorts of preparations in place hoping to gain an edge, and I myself have filled out multiple applications, sorted referees and had everything ready to go so that even before seeing a prospective rental home I have put in an application form. But these are the sorts of things that have become increasingly challenging as far as the playing field for renters in seeking to overcome vast amounts of competition in order to secure those increasingly precious leases. We do know from data that increases to rent are beginning to stabilise, that the growth in rent is flowing here in Victoria.

We also know that our median house prices are much more competitive in contrast to other jurisdictions. There are a few reasons for that, and they have been the subject of extensive public debate and indeed some of the contributions that we have heard here and in the other place. This is an area of friction which speaks to the complexity of the system. Whether it is people who are seeking to access social housing or people who are looking to move into rental accommodation, whether with others or on their own, rental accommodation which perhaps they can move into which better meets their needs either geographically or in the configuration of the home in question, or indeed people moving into home ownership, at every point along the way we see that where there is change to one part of the system there is consequence in another.

When we do see that homes become more affordable here in Victoria because home values change, we then see a corresponding increase in the number of people who move from private rental into home ownership. This is something that I would like to touch on in response to a number of the comments made in Mr Mulholland’s speech earlier. There is some data which perhaps disavows anyone of any illusion about the statistics he has put on home building and approvals in the period between 2010 and 2014 on the one hand and 2015 and 2024 on the other. When we increase the availability of stock, we see that that has a corresponding impact on affordability. This means that where we are creating conditions for people to move from residential tenancies arrangements into home ownership, we are reducing the amount of pressure on the rental market proper.

Here in Australia around 25 per cent of people are renting rather than owning homes, and we also see that aspiration to own a home remains comparatively very high in Australia in distinction from other jurisdictions. I know that in a range of other jurisdictions internationally there have been wideranging reforms to create that level playing field whereby renters have security of tenure even where a property may be sold. In Germany, for example, there is a framework that has been in place for a very long time – kauf bricht nicht miete – that means that buying a property does not break the rental arrangements that exist; they transfer, upon sale of a property, from one owner to another. That is just one example of the work that is happening globally, and this is where the reasonable grounds component of this bill is very, very important to allay any of the concerns that have been raised here and by a number of stakeholders in the preparation and discussion of this bill that we are here to debate today in the committee stage.

It is important to note that this is by no means a playing field that upon levelling enables a tenant to treat a property with disregard, disrespect or as a base for illegal activity. There are specific provisions that remain in place which, as they are prescribed and where there is a legitimate basis upon which to reply upon them, can be the starting point for an eviction. That is important to note. It is also important to note that increasing notice periods from 60 to 90 days does not in and of itself remove the right of a landlord to in fact end the nature of a contract that has enabled a tenancy to be in place because of their desire to do so. That, coupled with the removal of no-fault eviction and the work around gouging and increases in rent that are unfair – and that is a space that RDRV and VCAT and Consumer Affairs Victoria will be able to involved in – provides that framework for a better measure of balance in the system.

This is not work that has a finish line. We will see that as regulations are developed, as ongoing work and progress from RDRV continues to roll out once it begins its operation, as we see that work alongside VCAT and its general powers, including by reference to proceeding to a hearing where matters are unable to be resolved and/or a consent order is unable to be made in respect of any agreement that might be struck, that there are pathways for parties who are or remain aggrieved as a consequence of a breakdown, for whatever reason, in a residential tenancy arrangement. When we are talking about the opportunity for people to secure a rental property, it is important, as a number of speakers have referred to today, to think about this through the lens of the very human impact of a system that has not only enabled behaviour to take place that has effectively dislodged people from their residences but often – not always; it is frequently not the case – in a number of circumstances in fact displaced people into a risk of homelessness and rough sleeping because of a no-reason, no-fault eviction scenario.

These changes are guided by the principal objective of the importance of having a home, and this is something which I think everyone in this place would agree is of critical importance. We know that where we can provide housing, where we can provide connection to services and proximity to educational opportunity or public transport, things as simple as that address a whole raft of other actual or potential disadvantages. This is about more than homelessness, although homelessness is often a consequence of a failure to act or a failure to have systems that are geared towards solutions and towards shared, agreed outcomes. It is also about making sure that we are providing certainty and consistency across the system for those investors who are looking to make sure that the asset that they have can be managed in a way that is consistent with the way that other assets are being managed across the state.

The way in which information can be gathered and relied upon is another part of this bill which I think warrants some pretty careful discussion here today. All too often we see that – and it is not through any bad faith necessarily – information that is not directly relevant to somebody’s identity, employment or financial status is sought as part of a rental application. Changes in this bill are very, very squarely directed at making sure that, through a standard application form and through an express prohibition on asking anything beyond specific matters relevant to the capacity to service a tenancy, that will not be permissible – and that is only fair. We need to make sure that people are not creating, directly or inadvertently, a system which is onerous or potentially a source of embarrassment or which potentially requires the disclosure of confidential information. I also want to make it clear that the use of rental platforms and the fact that as a consequence of this bill fees will not be able to be passed on to applicants is another way in which we can assess the very real-world impact of these sorts of challenges when it comes to a highly competitive rental market.

As we bring additional homes on line across the state, we will be addressing parts of the pressure on the system that have led to some very perverse outcomes in recent years. We will see a continuation – hopefully, with further outcomes from the Reserve Bank of Australia that reduce interest rates – of an easing of the pressure on being able to service mortgages at the same time that we see more homes being built.

We want to make sure also that where people do not own a home – and there are many who do not aspire to own a home, although the dominant culture here in Australia does remain one of wanting to secure a mortgage – or where people do want to rent they have the certainty of a system which will apply uniformly across Victoria as it relates to anything from an apartment in the middle of Melbourne right through to a beautiful old home on the river in Mildura. We also want to make sure that wherever possible we can harmonise components of the rental system here in Victoria with those that operate in other jurisdictions.

Safety – with the remaining time that I have – is of essential importance. We are making sure, for example, that we are addressing requirements for smoke alarms to be present in homes and to be able to be checked, with information provided to tenants about the way in which these alarms operate. We have seen tragedies – more than 10 deaths over the last 17-odd years – of people who have not had smoke alarms installed and who have lost their lives. It is a tragedy. That is why these reforms are intended, amongst other things, to address the avoidable risk to safety as a consequence of a lack of the smoke alarm or a lack of a functional smoke alarm.

There are going to be challenges in this space, and this is where also I want to touch on the points of access. Access to properties remains a challenge, particularly in the social housing space where, again, there are people with complex needs and where people’s right to quiet enjoyment is something that is treasured and often occurs off the back of extensive trauma and is something that is guarded preciously. This requires a whole-person approach to understanding what access means and the beneficial nature of these changes.

We will continue to work alongside stakeholders, alongside residents and tenants groups. We will work within the Department of Government Services and the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, and Homes Victoria in particular, and with stakeholders like the Real Estate Institute of Victoria.

These changes constitute a better measure of balance than we have had in the system. They recognise the ongoing efforts of so many landlords, owner-occupiers and tenants to do the right thing, and they are about providing a better measure of a level playing field than that which we have at the moment.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (14:29)

This is the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Bill 2024, and I just, perhaps by way of introduction, make the point that this is an omnibus bill; there are many parts to it and parts that deal with quite different matters. There are some parts that the opposition supports, there are other parts that the opposition has no objection to, and there are parts that we have significant objections to. I should just indicate that the opposition has distributed its proposed amendments, and we also thank the clerks for the running sheet there which we just had a couple of adjustments to that will be of assistance to the chamber. I should, in making this point, just indicate that there are essentially three matters: there is the matter around the residential rental providers and notices to vacate; the second point in our amendments relates to a review; and the third in a sort of category, as it were, is those matters relating to planning and the planning changes that the government has proposed.

If, Deputy President, as you outlined, there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven acts that are amended by this bill, it might in these circumstances be convenient to acquit most of the questions of which I think I have 17 for the minister.

Harriet Shing: Only 17?

David DAVIS: Well, it is 17; I could do more if you want me to. Anyway, I have got my own little running sheet here and then the amendments which are separate to that, but it might just be convenient to acquit those on the purposes clause.

Harriet Shing: Sure.

David DAVIS: The first question I would ask is: with whom did the government consult on the bill, and what considerations were given to their feedback? So there may be a list that you have of the organisations that were consulted on this bill.

Thank you, Mr Davis, for your introductory remarks and for the measure of clarity that you have provided around the questions you have and the intention to group amendments as you wish to put them.

I would like to address the question that you have raised, but before I do that I just want to note that you have referred to an omnibus bill, and you have referred to some of those proposals being acceptable and others requiring further clarification. To that end, I am glad that we have an opportunity in committee to be able to go through these matters. It is unfortunate that you opposed the second reading of this bill and therefore sought to nobble this process as part of the committee, but this is –

David Davis: I did not call that division.

Harriet SHING: Well, again, Mr Davis, you have said you did not call the division, but having said that, you opposed the second reading of this bill. So in the interests of clarity it is important, I think, to be clear that while you say now that there are some elements of this bill that you do not have an issue with –

David Davis: I have said that before.

Harriet SHING: And you are right, you have said that before, but there are other issues which require ventilation and discussion. Your voting record should indicate very clearly that you sought not to have a debate on this bill but more so you sought for this bill not to be able to proceed at all.

So when we talked to the stakeholders and the consultation that has occurred, there was work that went into consultation and discussion across industry with residents, tenants, groups, individuals and of course people who own and manage property, real estate agent groups and others who have put their views about a range of matters that are set out in this bill. When we talked to these people, they indicated broadly that they were supportive of the bill. But having said that, there are stakeholders such as the Real Estate Institute of Victoria who have raised concerns about matters such as removal of the no-fault eviction being a change which would have a dampening effect on investor interest here in Victoria, and there are range of stakeholders who have conversely expressed the view that being able to have certainty in the system will help there as well.

We will continue to work with key stakeholders to implement the reforms in the development of regulations. Again, this bill is a point in time. As you would note from the bill itself and from the contributions that have been made in the course of the debate, Mr Davis, this is something which will be enhanced and which will be informed by the practical application of the legislation, in particular in the work of Residential Dispute Resolution Victoria (RDRV), its interface with VCAT and the work of Consumer Affairs Victoria. I am not sure whether there is in fact a list per se of groups, organisations or individuals who have provided comment. Again, it has not necessarily been comment to government, rather public comment. Why don’t I see what I can find you and whether any such document exists or whether it is been an aggregation –

David Davis interjected.

Harriet SHING: The organisations? Let me see what I can –

David Davis: We don’t want the names of any individuals.

Harriet SHING: No. I am not suggesting that you do want names of individuals, but let me see what I can find out for you, Mr Davis, about whether indeed any such document exists.

Mr Davis, in relation to the consolidated list that you have asked for, I am in the process of getting some information. As you have quite rightly pointed out, the omnibus nature of this bill means that there have been various discussions with various stakeholders, but I also just want to, perhaps for avoidance of any doubt, confirm to you that it is part of ongoing discussions, particularly as they relate to implementation. When we get to, for example, June and RDRV moves from the trial into active work across the system, sitting alongside VCAT’s functions and its interface with Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV), there will be a whole raft of other discussions that will take place and will need to take place continuously as these changes occur.

It is also important to note, Mr Davis, that there has been ongoing discussion within areas of government that sit adjacent to the department which has immediate oversight of these reforms. So where, for example, Homes Victoria has a role in the development and delivery of reforms to social housing, there will be engagement with bodies and organisations that have a direct wheelhouse of social housing, where the impact of one or more of the provisions in this bill, should it pass, will create change. Let me see what I can get for you, and I am very happy to the extent that we can consolidate something, to see what that looks like. Again, I would hate for you, Mr Davis, to see that as a finite list, because that might run the risk of facilitating a conclusion that is not perhaps accurate.

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that. My next question is: when can renters and rental providers expect to see the prescribed rental application and agreement forms? And secondly, how long will they have before it is compulsory to use them?

Mr Davis, the new form will be a document which, as you quite rightly point out, will create a measure of uniformity across the application process. That form will be prescribed by regulation, and upon passage of this bill, regulations will be prepared which will contain the detail of that application form. The earliest that that form will come into effect will be at the default commencement of this bill as it amends the legislation, which will be November this year.

I thank the minister for that. What I am also trying to get to with that is: will they see this and begin using it perhaps before it is compulsory? Is that possible?

Mr Davis, if anybody were to want to begin using a document which provides better practice, then it would be entirely within their remit to do so. If that in effect means that they are delivering on the objects of this legislation, which have been about harmonising, for example, the sort of information that can be required of applicants for the purpose of securing a tenancy, that might mean, Mr Davis, that if agents or representatives are looking for information to be provided and they do so in accordance with this form – whether it amounts to the physical layout and formatting of the form or whether it is about the detail being sought, asking information only about the person’s identity, financial status or employment and that they are not then asking questions which fall foul of the relevance of a determination about rental or tenancy suitability – that is a step in a direction which is indeed wholly supported by this bill and by the objectives that underpinned the announcements last year and the introduction of this bill in the Legislative Assembly shortly thereafter.

Will rental providers be given additional guidance or training from the government when these forms are rolled out in order to ensure they are filled out correctly and compliance is ensured?

The short answer to that is yes. It is important to go into some of the things which are proposed to be well understood by people before commencement that again go right to the heart of the objectives of this bill and the reforms more broadly. If we have a lack of awareness around the use of personal information provided by renters in applications – such as, for example, people asking for everything on the basis that something might be missing in order to assess an application within a real estate agent’s office – or a rental provider in seeking to satisfy themselves that there are not any issues in relation to a proposed tenancy. We are wanting to make sure that people are aware of how they align, for example, with the Commonwealth and Victorian privacy principles. This also sits alongside the national cabinet’s Better Deal for Renters priorities.

When we talk about, for example, the provisions in the bill that require rental providers and their agents to take reasonable steps to protect renters’ personal information and, moreover, going to the requirement to destroy and de-identify personal information in rental applications within certain periods of time, it is important that we do have an opportunity for people to understand the nature of those restrictions, what reasonable steps look like and the timeframes that apply. For example, when we are talking about destruction and de-identification of personal information in applications, that would be within three years where the rental applicant is successful, 30 days where the rental applicant is unsuccessful or six months where the applicant is unsuccessful but consents to the use of their information to apply for other premises.

We are talking about the introduction of penalties for a failure to manage that information in accordance with the Better Deal for Renters provisions, and there is the creation of an offence for the disclosure of renters’ personal information without consent. We are talking again about measures which reflect the seriousness of gathering, using, storing, circulating, distributing, publishing or destroying information. A failure to comply with those requirements to protect, destroy or de-identify personal information provided by renters will be an offence attracting fines of $11,855 for natural persons and $59,277 for body corporates.

There is a list of exemptions to the requirement for destruction. For example, where there is a court or tribunal order; where disclosure is authorised under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 or any other act, including a Commonwealth act; where a residential rental provider or a provider’s agent reasonably believes that a disclosure is necessary to lessen or to prevent a serious threat to a person’s life, health, safety or welfare or public health, public safety or public welfare; where there is a reasonable belief that the disclosure is necessary for the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of criminal offences or breach of a law imposing a penalty or sanction; for the preparation for, or conduct of, a proceeding before a court or the tribunal; for the enforcement of an order of a court or the tribunal; where ASIO or the Australian Secret Intelligence Service has requested the disclosure of renters’ information in connection with the body’s functions; if it is necessary for the conduct of a proceeding before a court or the tribunal; where written consent has been obtained from the renter or the prospective renter to disclose their information for a particular purpose and the information is held for that purpose; where any act, law or order of a court or tribunal otherwise requires the residential rental provider or the provider’s agent to hold the renter’s information; or where the disclosure is in a prescribed circumstance in regulations. Any other reason not being acceptable, a failure to comply with destruction or de-identification requirements would attract the penalties that I have outlined above.

Mr Davis, the reason that I have just gone through that provision in some detail is to illustrate the complexity of the changes as they relate to one part of what the bill amends around personal information. It is absolutely necessary and appropriate that there is a process of education, resourcing, training and assistance for rental providers and for agents. This is also about making sure that we are assisting them with being able to continue to understand how that works over time as regulations are bedded down. This is all part of the work that has been discussed in the review, and it is also about making sure that VCAT is aware of the work that is being undertaken over time and that we have a good interplay between VCAT, RDRV and Consumer Affairs Victoria.

There are also property-related reforms on new and expanded registration schemes. That includes the introduction, as we announced in the housing statement, of mandatory licensing and training for estate agents, property managers, owners corporation managers and conveyancers. At the moment not all property industry professionals require a licence or registration, which does not provide consumers with the assurance that those who are providing services are suitably skilled. This bill introduces a registration scheme for agents’ representatives and it expands the registration scheme for owners corporation managers to ensure that more people in the property industry demonstrate that they are fit to operate before they provide services to consumers. Mr Davis, you and I would both be aware of examples, as I am sure everyone else would, of people who are undertaking work as it relates to property management or to transactions involving tenancies where the standards have been not nearly achieved around a measure of confidence for either the owner-investor of that property or for tenants.

They are a couple of examples, Mr Davis, so it is important to note that registration, training, change and implementation of regulations axiomatically leads to a process of engagement and the opportunity for people to upskill to a point where they are compliant and engaging in the best practice that this bill seeks to achieve.

Thank you, Minister. I have some questions on the rental bidding and payment cap, and I thought I would ask them here. How will the enforcement of rental bidding be handled? Will Consumer Affairs Victoria have a dedicated taskforce, or will it be handled by the Department of Government Services?

Thank you, Mr Davis, for that question around banning rental bidding. As you would be aware, the provisions in the existing legislation, the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, prohibit a rental provider or their agent from soliciting a rental bid from a rental applicant, and that bid is an offer to pay rent in excess of the advertised amount of rent for the property or an offer to pay rent in advance for a period of more than one month. This has been an incredibly widespread practice in a highly competitive rental market, and this is where again, when we are addressing the issues of inequity that arise here, it is important to note that there are two sides to this particular matter.

On the one hand there is soliciting or seeking to solicit higher rental offers or indeed payment in advance beyond the existing provisions of bond plus rent. The other side of this relates to a prohibition, the creation of an offence that amends the act to make it an offence for a rental provider or their agent to accept an unsolicited rental bid or offers of payment of more than four weeks rent from a rental applicant. There are these penalties to disincentivise rental providers and estate agents from engaging in this practice, and renters will be able to use the new online complaint form on the Consumer Affairs Victoria website to report concerns anonymously. This is again about making sure that we are providing an ease of process for people to raise questions or concerns that they might have as it relates either to any allegation of an attempt to solicit or to offer an opportunity for additional rent or any acceptance of an offer in an unsolicited way from a prospective tenant.

My further question to the minister is: will the banning of rental bidding impact properties that have been rented out above the market rate due to a rental bid? And should these renters expect their rents to be reduced at the next review period back to market value?

Mr Davis, am I to take it from your question that you are referring to tenancies that are already in operation, where rents have been set, for example, at higher than the market rent for surrounding areas? Is that the sort of thing? Okay, I will take that as a yes. The rent review functions of the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria and VCAT are really, really important in making sure that we are ensuring that rent increases are fair. At the moment rent matters are considered by the director of Consumer Affairs and VCAT in determining whether proposed rent is excessive. They are prescribed in section 47, subsection 3 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. They include rent payable for comparative rents in the locality, state of repair and general condition of the rented premises, any changes to the rent and condition of the rented premises or facilities since the commencement of the residential agreement, the number of rent increases in the preceding 24 months, the amount of each rent increase and the timing of those increases.

The bill includes a regulation-making power that will allow prescribed additional matters to be considered by the director of Consumer Affairs and VCAT in an excessive rent review application. This is about any increases around the size or proportion of that proposed rent increase compared to the existing rent, which perhaps goes the question that you have asked, Mr Davis, or whether any improvements to the premises have been made since the last increase in the rent. There would also be additional matters prescribed as matters for the director of Consumer Affairs and VCAT to consider to be progressed in regulations and to be informed by stakeholder consultations. I will come back to that question of stakeholder engagement, Mr Davis, noting that in the example I have just outlined stakeholder consultation will be a continuous process. But examples of the matters that may be prescribed include the size or the amount of a rent increase or the difference between the current and the proposed rent; the state of repair and general condition of a property, including any outstanding requests for repairs; and whether there have been improvements made to their property since the last rent increase for that property and the nature of those improvements.

So, Mr Davis, the setting of rent in the first instance is a matter which is not subject to review where it already exists. It is not a retrospective operation. What it does do, however, is provide a mechanism whereby the review of rent for the purpose of any change to the quantum of that rent, whether in reflection of any changes or improvements made to the property or any changes in the market or comparable conditions around the area or in the configuration of that dwelling as compared to other dwellings, is something which is intended to be addressed by this bill.

If the property were to go back on the market after having been occupied by a rental bidder, would the rental provider be required to advertise it at the market rate or the previous rate offered by the tenant – that is, it was listed at $400 a week or an offer of $600 a week was accepted and after 12 months the property is back on the market. What is the rate that it should be listed at?

When you refer to the property and I will quote you ‘being back on the market’ we are then going into the terrain of the reasons as to why the property might be back on the market.

David Davis interjected.

Harriet SHING: Well, you have just said there may well be many reasons. When we are talking about security of tenancy, we are also talking about banning no-fault evictions and banning the sorts of circumstances that may mean that people are presented with an unreasonable rent increase or otherwise presented with an eviction notice without grounds – I am sure we will get to that – which then means they feel have no real or practical choice but to leave that rental agreement. There are two components I think to your question. When you say that a property comes back onto the market and there is a desire to significantly increase the rent, that may well sit alongside the eviction of a tenant and the circumstance whereby the property is re-let at a significantly higher price. That is exactly what this bill, amongst other things, is intending to do to restrict rent increases between successive fixed-term tenancies. There is an emerging trend, Mr Davis, where some rental providers have evicted residents at the end of their first fixed-term rental agreement in order to raise the rent substantially when relisting the rental property. The purpose of the reform is outlined in the housing statement as being squarely focused on addressing that very scenario. If, however, there is a basis for eviction exercised in accordance with the act and that eviction is done in a way that is set out in the act, section 91Z onwards, that may well be where a property can be re-let with different rent.

The Residential Tenancies Act does still provide those grounds, and those grounds include serious damage to the rental property; where a renter endangers the safety of neighbours, the rental provider or their agent or a contractor; threats and intimidation; the condition of premises not being fit for human habitation; a renter owing at least 14 days of rent; failure to pay bond; failure to comply with a VCAT order; successive breaches by the renter; use of a premises for an illegal purpose; permitting a child to reside in a premises where the renter has failed to comply with the terms of a rental agreement; false statements to a housing authority; assignment or subletting without consent; if it is a residential rental provider’s principal place of residence; where there is an intention to repair, renovate or reconstruct a premises; demolition; where the premises is to be used for business; where it is to be occupied by the residential rental provider or that provider’s family; where it is to be sold – and this is in contradistinction, as I said, to the German model which operates whereby rental arrangements continue before and after a sale where that rental arrangement has been in place as part of those large-scale reforms; where the premises is required for public purposes; where the renter now no longer meets eligibility criteria for housing – and that goes to, for example, the income threshold test for social housing whereby access to that social housing and a capped rent at 25 or 30 per cent of a resident’s income up to a certain amount is the threshold and once that amount is exceeded, then they are no longer eligible for that housing; where a renter no longer meets the national rental affordability scheme (NRAS) eligibility criteria or no longer meets the affordable housing program’s eligibility criteria; where a renter in transitional housing refuses alternative accommodation; where there is a notice to vacate when a pet is kept without consent; and where there is a prohibition on letting the premises after notice. In those circumstances, Mr Davis, where a property become available following an eviction on reasonable grounds, there is of course an opportunity for a property to be re-let, but again it is about making sure that those grounds for a rental provider to evict have been satisfied, where one or more of those criterion apply.

Does the government foresee any of the points you have made there leading to an increase in rent prices as rental providers may choose to increase their advertised price to factor in a loss of rental bidding?

Outlawing rental bidding is not a new thing on the horizon as a consequence of this bill, Mr Davis. You were in the chamber when we had the reforms before this place as part of a suite of changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. There are more than 100 changes that have been enacted as a consequence of those reforms.

What we have seen in Victoria is an easing of the increase in rents across the state; I think growth has slowed to about 0.6 per cent in Victoria if my recollection of the CoreLogic property data is correct. But we do know that there is still more to be done around managing the cost of living, particularly where rental stress is a significant factor in the challenges that people are facing in balancing their bills and their bank accounts.

As a number of speakers said in making contributions on this bill, financial stress, rental distress and mortgage stress are all hitting hard. We have seen a measure, a flicker, a tiny glimmer of hope in the Reserve Bank’s recent decision to lower interest rates by 0.25 of 1 per cent. It is pleasing that all four of the big banks passed that changed rate on immediately. The next interest rate decision by the Reserve Bank will be in April, and that will no doubt have an impact.

We have also seen changes to affordability in Victoria. Now, this is variously classified by public commentators as ‘a drop in house values’ or ‘increased affordability’, but what we do know, Mr Davis, is that as a result of these changes we are seeing more people moving into home ownership but we are also seeing more homes being made available for people to access, and this then creates more opportunities for people to put in applications for more than one home and to have a greater degree of success in securing a home. Also, the vacancy rate across Victoria is beginning to ease. It has not become a landscape in percentage terms that takes us back to acceptable levels for people who are still duking it out with other applicants who are looking to live particularly in and around built-up areas. But what it does signal is that there is more stock available alongside the comparatively affordable price of real estate in Victoria and alongside a slowed rate of growth in rental income and prices.

So it is not anticipated that a ban on rental bidding will have any further impact, Mr Davis, given that that has been proscribed for some time now. When I reflect on your question, I wonder if perhaps you are talking about rent increases and rent reviews, and those components of rental increases have also been part of a range of discussions that have been had with stakeholders around cracking down on rental providers and estate agents who do the wrong thing. We want to make sure again that rental premises are meeting those minimum standards before they are advertised or let rather than when they are occupied, and it is really important to note that the rent review function of the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria and VCAT will be really critical to ensuring that rent increases are fair.

Going back to the criteria that I took you through earlier, it is about fairness, Mr Davis, and the regulation-making power will enable us to see prescribed additional matters to be considered in any excessive rent review application. This is in response to applications for excessive rent reviews, and those matters could be considered within the lens of that process.

Minister, will the current rental agreements be impacted by the capping of rent in advance? If so, how many of them, and will rental providers be required to pay back the excess rent, or will the provisions only apply to the payment of rent after the bill comes into effect? For example, someone who has paid six weeks rent in advance.

Mr Davis, it has been four weeks for some time. So, if indeed –

David Davis interjected.

Harriet SHING: If somebody has paid more than four weeks because they were asked to or it was a condition of securing a lease for the purpose of a bidding arrangement, then from the point at which this bill becomes operational any further attempt to do that would constitute a breach, but this is prospective legislation, Mr Davis. In the event that there were, in effect, rental funds owing to a resident where, for example, a notice period is exercised – that increase from 60 to 90 days is exercised around an increase and that money is not forthcoming – then the renter would have an option to seek repayment of that money. But again what we are talking about is a prospective process, and four weeks has been the quantum for a considerable period of time.

How will the government regulate and enforce the provisions around soliciting a rental bid?

I have taken you through the provisions in the bill that create the offence, not just as they exist for soliciting or offering a bid but also the new offence proposed to be created by this bill of accepting any offer, as an unsolicited rental bid, of payments of more than four weeks rent from a rental applicant. Those penalties are intended to disincentivise rental providers and estate agents from engaging in this practice, and renters, as I said, can use that new online application form. Consumer Affairs will have carriage of that form on their website and people will be able to report concerns anonymously, but the rental taskforce will also be assisting with enforcement and these new rules will be rolled into that process.

I ask further: will the application of the increase in notice period impact agreements where a notice of a rent increase has already been lodged, or will it apply to notices given after the bill comes into effect?

It will be after the commencement of this bill. As I said, it is a prospective bill for the purposes of the matters that you have raised – well, it is a prospective bill, full stop.

Will agents be notified about the changes to these provisions to ensure they are issuing the correct documents?

The short answer to that is yes, and this will be done through a range of different processes and engagements, including with peak bodies. The Real Estate Institute of Victoria (REIV) and others are taking a lead when it comes to discussion on, for example, continuing professional development, the introduction of mandatory initial education and the work around continuing engagement on what standards will apply. That is, as much as anything, about making sure that when it comes to penalties, for example, for misrepresentation in the sale of land, we want to make sure also that we have an opportunity to do more to give homebuyers, in this instance, greater protection from poor conduct. So the work in engaging and discussing these changes with stakeholders will continue. As I said, the regulations will be developed in the course of this year, but there will not be operation of these provisions before the nominal commencement date, the default commencement in November this year.

It should not go unsaid, Mr Davis, that people want to do the right thing in all but smallest number of cases, and this is where the Real Estate Institute of Victoria provides critical support to people who do want to do the right thing to make sure that they can do the right thing and that they have the resources and the information available to enable them to do the right thing. So when it comes to implementation of these reforms, we will work closely alongside those stakeholders. There is a significant interest for stakeholders in the real estate sector to be part of these conversations, particularly when rental yields have never been higher. Investors and owners, whether they are small-scale people who have their life savings in an investment property or whether they are people who own multiple properties as part of often very complex investment funds, are able to do the right thing and to have the information that they need.

Likewise will already issued notices to vacate be impacted by these changes or will they not be impacted if they were issued before the bill came into effect?

The period of transitional provisions, namely the period in which regulations are being developed and the default commencement date in November, will be the period at which existing provisions continue to apply. Where notices to vacate have been issued between now and November, then current provisions will apply. Where notices to vacate are issued after the default commencement date, then the provisions in the act as amended by this bill will apply. That is where, again, the act will continue to provide those grounds for rental providers to evict renters, but the alternative means to deliver on the housing statement objective by repealing the two remaining no-reason notices from the Residential Tenancies Act will mean that renters will only be able to be evicted on those genuine reasonable grounds. That then provides a greater security of tenure.

It is actually a really simple and direct way, Mr Davis, to strengthen the security of tenure and to limit those cost-of-living pressures, which I have taken you to in a previous answer. It will extend those protections from arbitrary eviction to all renters. I spoke to this in my second-reading contribution: harmonising the work in Victoria with other jurisdictions is also about delivering on the national cabinet commitment to remove all no-fault eviction mechanisms from residential tenancy legislation. As I said earlier, the Real Estate Institute of Victoria has expressed concerns about the removal of those remaining no-reason notices to vacate on the basis of what it says are deterrents to investment, but it is about making sure that where there is a notice to vacate issued for those reasons that I have outlined earlier that there is still a mechanism to evict a renter.

But Department of Government Services will continue to engage, as I said, with stakeholders, whether direct stakeholders or those indirect stakeholders such as Homes Victoria, to ensure that those current mechanisms in the Residential Tenancies Act are applied in a way that is grounded in that component of fairness that I took you to earlier but also that the changes are managed in a way that people understand and have time to prepare for.

I just want to take you to the consultation I have already asked about, but I am specifically interested in 91ZZD and 91ZZDA. In relation to them, I also have two other questions. What consideration was given to the impact that the removal of those sections would have on rental providers when they are faced with the end of a fixed-term tenancy that they would like to end without reason? And how many notices to vacate are issued under this proviso? Does the government foresee this causing more cases at VCAT due to contentious notices to vacate? So it is a double-barrelled question there.

Can you break it up into – sorry, there are two –

David DAVIS: One was about the consultation. The second is what consideration was given to the impact the removal of these sections would have on rental providers when they are faced with the end of a fixed-term tenancy that they would like to end without reason? And the second point is: how many notices to vacate are issued under this provision, and does the government foresee this causing more cases at VCAT?

Harriet SHING: There is not actually a register as such around exercise of the two current no-reason notices from the Residential Tenancies Act, so this is a part of your question that is difficult to answer when it has not been a requirement for the basis upon which to end a tenancy to be kept in some central location. But what this part of the amendment does, to be clear, is preserve those grounds for rental providers to evict renters. The objective is to bring it into line with other jurisdictions, but it is also to make sure that when people are given a notice to evict, they are given a notice that is underpinned by one of the reasons set out in the act.

Who is going to pay, Minister, the processing fee for applications and background searches if the government is removing the fee? Does this come back to the rental provider, the agency or the company doing the collection? Will this impact the provision of services as a result?

As it currently stands, the rental provider meets those costs, which may be part of an agreement with a landlord as part of its contract to deliver tenanting arrangements and property management services. The provisions of this bill as they relate to the rental application changes and also, adjacently, renters’ personal protection provisions is about making sure that renters are not footing the bill through any other arrangement for either making an application or for identity checks or for any of those other prerequisite documents. But it is also about making sure, Mr Davis, that we are addressing the issue of unnecessary or inappropriate information being sought which does not have anything to do with a renter’s identity, financial situation or employment status. It is also really important to note, Mr Davis, that we do want to make sure that we have an opportunity for a consistent approach to rental applications and that people well understand the operation of a system here in Victoria that aligns with other states but that also ensures that people are not being penalised, particularly in a tight rental market, with the effect of needing to constantly pay for the purposes of making an application.

Minister, what steps will the government take to ensure that agencies and collection companies are complying with the deletion of renters’ data under the bill?

You are going directly to the question about protection of personal information, and as I have taken you through already, the provisions around restricting the use of personal information require that information to be destroyed after an appropriate time, and this applies both to rental providers and to agents. Again, this is about an alignment with the Victorian and Commonwealth privacy principles and the national cabinet’s A Better Deal for Renters. Mr Davis, as I have taken you through as well, a failure to comply with those requirements to protect, destroy or de-identify personal information provided by renters would be an offence attracting fines of $11,855 for natural persons and $59,277 for bodies corporate. The enforcement of these matters sits with Consumer Affairs Victoria, and it is also important to note that these privacy provisions are as close as possible to the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014, which applies only to government entities. Mr Davis, you have just asked about police. Again, the security of information held by police is something which is regulated under –

David Davis: No, no – police looking at the enforcement of this provision.

Harriet SHING: Oh, right. Sorry, you have just said police looking at the enforcement of this provision. The work around enforcement, Mr Davis, will sit in the first instance with Consumer Affairs Victoria. If there is any allegation or concern about criminal conduct or misuse of that information, then it would stand to reason that Consumer Affairs Victoria could seek law enforcement assistance. But there are also some exemptions, Mr Davis, and those exemptions include, in terms of not requiring the destruction or de-identification of renters’ personal information if, for example, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or the Australian Secret Intelligence Service has requested the disclosure of renters’ information in connection with that body’s function; or there is an act, law or order of a court or tribunal otherwise requiring the residential rental provider or the provider’s agent to hold the renter’s information; or, for example, there is a reasonable belief held by the residential rental provider or the provider’s agent that the disclosure is necessary to lessen or prevent a serious threat to a person’s life, health, safety or welfare, or public health, public safety or public welfare. I also want to be clear that, again, police functions are not intended to be displaced in any way, shape or form by the way in which CAV would enforce these provisions, and those exemptions would continue to apply.

On another matter, when does the government foresee the real estate sector training courses being ready to be implemented?

Generally, or part of? Because there are planning ones as well.

David DAVIS: Yes, you can do both.

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, in response to a question that you asked about the planning provisions and the training requirements around registration and the provisions around the sanction for the purpose of changes to identity collection, rent reviews and engagement with renters as part of ongoing maintenance of property and those property-related reforms, I have taken you to the first category in quite some detail. I am very happy to go through it again, but I suspect you might be more interested in the property-related reforms.

These are reforms that are about introducing new registration schemes for those agents’ representatives and owners corporation managers. This is something which was outlined in the housing statement, providing for mandatory licensing and training for estate agents, property managers, owners corporations managers and conveyancers. At the moment it is not the case that all property industry professionals require a licence or registration. That means that consumers do not necessarily have certainty that those who are providing services are suitably or consistently skilled. The registration scheme for agents’ representatives is an expansion of the registration scheme for owners corp managers to ensure that more people in the property industry can demonstrate that they are fit to operate before they provide services to consumers. That is not just an opportunity for training and for professional development, it is an opportunity as much as anything else for agents and representatives to be able to confirm to consumers that they have the skills and expertise necessary to acquit their obligations under the act, including as it might be amended.

At the moment, if an estate agent wants to employ an agents’ representative, that agent is responsible for checking a person’s eligibility to be an agents’ representative. They also then need to notify the Business Licensing Authority that they have employed that person as an agents’ representative. Under the existing system, it is up to estate agents and their representatives to themselves interpret whether a person has met those eligibility requirements. That includes education requirements. For employment as an agents’ representative it is something that has also led to misunderstandings, which puts consumers at risk essentially, and this is where protection for renters is able to be increased by improving oversight of agents’ representatives before they can provide those services to consumers. Getting ahead of it means that again we are avoiding problems downstream that are often far more difficult and costly to unpick than with that early intervention work that might be done for far less impost.

This will mean that the Business Licensing Authority will be responsible for checking that a person can work as an agents’ representative, including whether education requirements have been met. The existing registration scheme for owners corporations management only applies to those businesses, so other than sole traders, individuals in owners corporations management industries are not required to register.

There are, as I said, a number of education requirements being introduced. Existing agents’ representatives will be deemed to be registered under the new registration scheme, and there will be a discretion for the Business Licensing Authority. There is no registration requirement applying to people currently working in the owners corporation management sector, so we will be extending registration requirements to individuals running those management businesses. Change to licensing regimes for estate agents and conveyancers is limited to an undertaking of continuous professional development to maintain a licence. Again, in terms of timeframes, this is about a registration being required by the default commencement date, so 25 November, unless it is proclaimed earlier, and people who are employed and notified that they are employed will be deemed to be registered on the commencement day if you do it before then. Agents’ representatives and officers in effective control of owners corp managers will be required to pay a fee for registration. Once they are registered they will be required to pay an annual registration fee to manage their registration, and the quantum of those fees will be set out in regulations.

The introduction of CPD requirements for estate agents and conveyancers will increase the Business Licensing Authority’s workload. We expect to be able to recover the cost of the increased workload by adjusting existing licensing fees for estate agents and conveyancers. The quantum of those fee increases, though, will be set out in the regulations, which we have talked about earlier. There will be a public process of consultation on proposed increases, and there will not be any impact on appropriations. Property industry professionals or their employers will be expected to fund the cost of taking initial education and continuous professional development courses, and the quantum of training-related costs will depend on the cost set by training providers.

Back to CPD, Mr Davis, perhaps you would be aware of this work within the health sector and your own experience, where it has been a requirement to undertake regular training across the field in which you practise. As a lawyer I have participated in many CPD courses over the years. It is a points-based system –

David Davis interjected.

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, you have just asked me if I have learned anything. I am always learning things, Mr Davis. There is a panoply of opportunity for people in a CPD environment to learn, and that is exactly what this is also about for the purposes of new agents representatives.

David Davis interjected.

Harriet SHING: You have just asked me across the table, Mr Davis, if I have ever been to any seminars in Fiji. I can assure you I have never been to a seminar in Fiji, and indeed one of the things that I have enjoyed over the period of my professional practice as a lawyer has been the opportunity to participate in continuous professional development online.

I just want to be really clear that we do want to make sure that we are doing this in a way that is accessible. We want to make sure that when we address the commencement date for real estate agents, agents reps and conveyancers on 25 November 2026, we will also have that well in train by the time that owners corporation managers commencement kicks off on 30 June 2027. There are two different dates there, Mr Davis, just for your information, and they are about six months apart, which is six-ish months after the default commencement of the bill into legislation and then a further six-ish months from there.

Gold Coast! Did you go to the Gold Coast for CPD?

No, never the Gold Coast and never Fiji either, so there you are.

When does the government expect to announce what the actual minimum requirements for officer-in-effective-control managers will be? That is one question. The other question, which is parallel with that, I guess, is: in both cases, for agents and for the other group of strata managers and so forth, how will the mandatory professional development be tracked? Will there be spot testing? How will this operate?

There will be work that is prescribed in regulations as part of the way in which CPD will be understood and regulated. You have talked about spot checks, but there will be registered organisations that are able to monitor that as well as provide training. That might be the Business Licensing Authority or the REIV, and this will be about making sure that they are as much a part of that work as the people who are participating in it. They are best placed to be able to make sure that the industry is meeting those requirements and is therefore able to demonstrate best practice.

It goes back to the point I made earlier: the vast, vast majority of people who are working across the sector, whether through owners corporations or through the work of representatives and agents’ representatives, are doing the right thing, and they work really hard to do the right thing. This is again about making sure that that can be demonstrated, and the regulations will enable us to do that. That consultation, though, will be part of the work between now and the default commencement date.

This is my second-last question. Noting that the Business Licensing Authority will administer this part of the legislation and so forth – I gather that there may be industry associations that may do part of that too – what funding and resources will be provided to the Business Licensing Authority to administer this part of the legislation? Will that come from the licence fees? What is envisaged as the licence fee? Will it be $50 a year, $100 a year, $1000 a year, $2000, $5000 a year? I am just interested to know what you are able to say on the record about the likely fee.

The registration scheme fee – is that what you are after?

David DAVIS: Yes. Is it $100? Is it $2000?

Harriet SHING: As long as you are talking about the registration scheme, that is all right.

The question of costs associated with registration will be determined through the regulations and as part of a RIS, a regulatory impact statement, which will be part of public consultation and discussion. That will need to be settled, obviously, before the default commencement date in November. Of course this will involve feedback from representatives and peaks across the sector. Importantly also, the CAV – Consumer Affairs Victoria – interface will also have an impost, and that is where the property fund, being the main one, will have some work to do around meeting the costs associated with that work. I hope that provides you with a measure of certainty in that space, but I cannot give you a dollar figure, as you have asked for here today. I am looking to get –

David DAVIS: Even rough parameters, like $1000 a year or $2000.

Harriet SHING: To do that, Mr Davis, would be to seek to trample over a regulatory impact statement process, and I do not wish to do that because that would be unfair on –

David DAVIS: You can’t rule out $5000 a year for agents.

Harriet SHING: I am not ruling anything in or out, Mr Davis, because for me to do that would be to send people down a garden path that is neither worthy nor helpful.

The follow-on question from that is: the registration fees will fund Business Licensing Authority and CAV –

CAV is the property fund.

Okay. Will there be money from licensing into that? No. Okay. That is all right. I am just trying to understand this. But it will also potentially fund whatever administrative load is required in these business –

That’s the RIS.

All right. My final question is: when will Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria be up and running, and how many cases can they be expected to take from VCAT’s residential tenancies list?

Thanks, Mr Davis, for your question about RDRV. As you may know, RDRV has been undertaking trial work, and it has been a team of about 20 people to date. There will be additional resources brought on board, and they will work closely with VCAT as the work of RDRV ramps up. The commencement of that work will be in June this year.

We do also want to make sure that we are providing as many pathways as possible for people to access that alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Again, the purpose of the reforms to the Residential Tenancies Act have been geared towards not just understanding where areas of friction or disagreement exist between a tenant and a landlord but also to preserving the relationship, and where that can be possibly be done and where RDRV can assist parties to resolve an agreement, there might well be a process whereby if a VCAT team member who has run a proceeding then resolves the matter, there can be an agreement to settle, there can be an order that gives effect to the settlement, or that people can actually continue, if a dispute is not resolved, to a hearing itself. The bill does not prevent a matter from being listed for a formal VCAT hearing for a member to decide if the parties cannot reach an agreement. Alternative dispute resolution is a really important part of making sure that we are able to assist people to reach an agreement through those forms of alternative dispute resolution that are referred to. There is a Civil Procedure Act 2010, with definitions that include mediation, early natural evaluation, settlement conferences, expert determination and conciliation. That is an inclusive list. It gives VCAT flexibility to use a really broad range of dispute resolution mechanisms and to tailor the dispute resolution process on a case-by-case basis. Any person who is entitled to lodge a VCAT application under the Residential Tenancies Act is entitled to apply.

Importantly, VCAT staff will provide a broad range of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to RDRV parties. VCAT is already providing training to all staff on RDRV processes, and it is upskilling its resolution coordinators to obtain accreditation as mediators. That accreditation process is something which is very, very well used around a consistent approach to standards in what ADR looks like around Australia. We also want to make sure that there are qualifications held by a principal registrar or the person to whom they delegate, and VCAT is providing training to all staff on RDRV processes. RDRV includes services provided by both Consumer Affairs Victoria and VCAT, and VCAT will provide the ADR component of RDRV.

Also, it is really important to note that VCAT has cleared its backlog, as of last year, and that the work of RDRV will then assist in a further streamlining of VCAT’s work, because of the triage process whereby RDRV can assist in dispute resolution and the reduction of workload for VCAT where a formal hearing is not required.

I will say some of my questions have been crossed off, so I will try not to duplicate any of those. I will start with some planning ones first, and we will see where we go from there. Minister, with regard to ministerial powers and local decision-making, how will the bill’s expansion of ministerial powers affect local councils’ ability to manage and respond to the specific needs of their communities, particularly in terms of housing and planning?

Thanks, Mr Puglielli, for your question. I am glad that perhaps to some extent I have managed to help you to cross items off your list this afternoon. I did see you out of the corner of my eye nodding at one point or another, so it is good that we have been able to do some double duty.

Councils and government are being held more accountable for decision-making during planning scheme amendments through a range of measures that include accountability for decisions to abandon amendments – the ability for a council to unilaterally abandon an amendment regardless of its planning merit will be removed and the minister will have the power to take over the amendment if they consider it appropriate – and a clear pathway for landowner proposals for amendments, so a proponent request to prepare an amendment will become a recognised stage of the process. And that includes the ability for the minister to direct a council to progress the request and require a council to provide reasons for not preparing an amendment, if that assists you with that particular question, Mr Puglielli.

Are you able to provide an assurance to the house that these provisions you are describing do not compromise the autonomy and strategic planning objectives of local councils?

The autonomy of councils is preserved. The extent to which the minister exercises the power to take over an amendment if they consider it appropriate does not displace that autonomy, but what it does do is enable the minister to exercise that decision-making power. It is a fine distinction but one I think needs to be made, because there is not a process whereby local government is required to take decisions in one direction or another. It is that the minister has a power to take over an amendment where there is a determination by the minister that that is appropriate. On those pathways for amendments, there is an ability for the minister to direct a council to progress the amendment and to require a council to provide reasons for not preparing an amendment.

There are two different components to the question that you have asked. A council is in the first instance able to have its views about all sorts of different things within the remit of its statutory framework, but the minister does have powers either to exercise a decision on an amendment or indeed to direct a council to progress a request.

I have a question on low-impact amendments. Given the introduction of low-impact amendments and the discretionary power vested in the minister to determine what constitutes a low-impact amendment, how will the government ensure that these powers are not abused to undermine effectively local council plans and community input?

There is a new low-impact pathway obviously for those less complex planning scheme amendments. This is about a low-impact pathway that is commensurate with the risk profile of less complex amendments. That is about saving councils and proponents time and resources. Those amendments will go through public exhibition, but they will not require planning panel hearings to resolve submissions, and classes of amendments that are suitable for this pathway might also be prescribed in regulations for a streamlined authorisation process. It is, though, about the proportionality component of this discussion. So again, low impact pathways have to be contiguous with the lesser risk profile or complex amendments for the purpose of a more streamlined process.

Just a question on proponent-led amendments: with the formalisation of proponent-led planning scheme amendments, what safeguards would be put in place to ensure transparency and prevent conflicts of interest given the potential for these to override local council strategic planning initiatives led by local councils and community stakeholders?

The current act does not explicitly contemplate landowners requesting a planning scheme amendment; the bill actually formalises the ability for a person to request that a council prepare a planning scheme amendment and requires the council to advise the person and also the minister of their decision on the request. The council would need to provide reasons for not progressing a planning scheme amendment request. This is also about making sure that we have a balance but also a recognition of practical circumstances, and again it is part of the broader amendments in relation to planning scheme amendments that really do streamline a current process that can be really costly and resource-intensive and cumbersome; we are talking about sort of a year and a half at any one point in time from the authorisation decision to gazetted approval, so we need to make sure that we are providing these legislative changes to an end of greater certainty in a way that also reduces delays and costs and again comes back to that question of proportionality. So there is a very clear distinction between low impact and not low impact, so that binary, but then also making sure that we do have a very clear process that does not currently exist in the act around a clear pathway for landowner proposals for planning scheme amendments.

Just following that one up, though, because part of the question went to prevention of conflicts of interest: are you able to provide further detail regarding that to the house?

You have asked me a question which I will have to get you some further detail on but suffice it to say conflicts of interest are a matter which fall within the remit of a number of integrity bodies; it might well be the Local Government Inspectorate or it might be one of the integrity bodies such as the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. Their jurisdiction is by no means displaced in relation to any matters that may be the subject of a complaint or an investigation for the purpose of the determination or examination of an actual or perceived conflict of interest and the way in which that may fall foul of the objectives of the act. Let me just see if I can get you some further information, though.

Further to the matters that I just put on the record, which are an important part of the integrity framework, I just want to also make it clear that there are own-motion powers for the purpose of investigation and inquiry and also determination with findings and recommendations, including referrals, from integrity bodies. Operation Sandon was one such example of the way in which that inquiry process took place and those investigations, conclusions and reporting occurred. There have been recommendations in that report around disclosures and around the way in which that disclosure framework should be managed around having a record of any actual or perceived conflict of interest. There are also policies that exist and obligations that occur under the local government act for the purpose of disclosures or people recusing themselves from various decision-making environments. We do see that in a range of other matters as they relate to local councils.

Those changes are not within the scope of this particular bill. That would be part of broader planning reforms. This, being part of an omnibus on housing statement reform, is something that I think is confined to the issues that we have before us today. But what I would say for avoidance of any doubt whatsoever is that any allegations of corrupt or unlawful activity fall very squarely within the remit of integrity bodies. There are very, very clear legislative and regulatory frameworks which operate to empower those bodies to undertake a range of activities and to report on them accordingly, and that is exactly as it should be. Obviously there is further work to be done but not within the scope of this bill.

Just to, I guess, ensure that I have understood where your response was going there: noting what you have said, in terms of the prevention of conflicts of interest regarding proponent-led amendments, the complaint or report being given to any of those bodies, where would that sit? Who would be making that complaint or report if there was actual or perceived conflict of interest regarding one of those amendments?

When we are talking about proponent-led matters, the act actually removes the current silence in respect of those matters. This does provide a measure of greater transparency than that which currently exists, because those matters are already part of the system, they just have not been recognised until now. What I would say, though, is that there are obligations to manage contracts in a way that meets contractual obligations, so that is one part of it. There is the statute around disclosures as they relate to the effecting of an application, and within council frameworks there are obligations to manage actual or perceived conflicts of interest. That was where IBAC went squarely in its analysis of certain parts of the Sandon investigation.

This is, again, about making sure that we can address part of that by actually putting it into the statute. As I have said earlier, disclosures and other administrative processes which create that further measure of transparency are not within the scope of this particular bill, but they were certainly part of the conclusions drawn in Sandon, and the government obviously accepted conclusions from that report.

Just moving onto VCAT and Planning Panel Victoria’s processes, considering changes to VCAT and planning panels processes, how will the government ensure that these changes do not diminish the ability of community to participate meaningfully in planning decisions?

Around the questions of proceedings before VCAT, this is about addressing inefficiencies in the management and proceedings of VCAT’s planning and environment division. A clearing of backlog has taken place – by the end of last year, that backlog had been cleared, and that was a herculean effort by the tribunal in that regard. But what we have seen is a really significant increase in demand across the planning and environment division over recent years, and that has had a really big impact on commercial and economic activity. The total value of VCAT’s planning and environment division claims for 2022–23 was $7.71 billion. That meant that delays in the planning and environment division had a really considerable impact on economic activity. In 2022–23 the number of cases initiated in the planning and environment division increased by 5 per cent compared to the previous year, and the number of cases fell by 8 per cent compared to 2021–22. 1333 matters were pending, leaving parties waiting up to 27 weeks to have their matters heard.

The issues to be addressed relate to a couple of things. Firstly, case management and the current limitation of explicit powers afforded to VCAT members to actively manage matters and the requirements under the VCAT act led to planning hearings becoming much longer and more complex than was necessary, and they often extended well beyond their scheduled timeframes. For example, VCAT members are presently unable to join objectors as a grouped party even if they each have a similar or identical statement. They are also unable to impose time limits during hearings and they cannot dismiss matters that have no substantive or objective merit. We need to make sure also that we are improving process, and this is where the high administrative burden that exists in that list needs to be reduced.

The changes that are proposed in this legislation will enable VCAT to treat two or more objectors as a group if their statements rely upon similar grounds or raise similar issues. That will also provide VCAT with additional power to actively case manage matters, including conducting all or part of a proceeding entirely on the basis of documents, so on the papers; imposing time limits on parties making submissions or the examination of witnesses at a hearing; identifying at an early stage the issues involved in a proceeding and encouraging parties to cooperate and/or to settle proceedings. The VCAT act will also be amended so that VCAT can order one party to a proceeding to serve notice on another regarding the time and place of a hearing. In addition to that, VCAT may provide a summary of its reasoning for its decision to affirm or vary a decision under a planning enactment.

This will help the planning and environment division to run more efficiently, and it will also reduce those hearing times by providing VCAT members with greater powers to actively case manage proceedings. It is also about making sure that when we group matters we are reducing that backlog and also helping the tribunal to get ahead of its workload so that more matters can be dealt with into the future. It is also going to have a significant impact on time and cost, not just around decision lag but also around the costs and fees incurred by people who are participating in proceedings.

These amendments do not actually mean that matters raised by objectors who are parties to an appeal are not considered by VCAT in making a decision, but rather that the legislation stipulates that VCAT members may only exercise these powers where they support the interests of a just, timely and efficient proceeding and reasons are provided to the parties. That is again a procedural fairness matter, and that is about making sure we are not hindering the rights of parties. That goes directly to the questions that you have raised around what that framework of fairness and of equity looks like in the course of participating in tribunal matters.

With the provisions you have outlined, for example, the grouping of matters before VCAT, is it the government’s view that those changes do not in any way diminish the ability of community to participate in a way it would find meaningful in planning decisions?

There are a couple of things in your question. You have used the words that they ‘do not diminish’ in any way the capacity of community members to participate in ways that they may see as being meaningful. There is a very subjective element to what you have asked there around what community members themselves may see as subjectively meaningful. I cannot answer that on the basis that there may well be community members who see that it is necessary to participate in a process that is of a record length and complexity in order to have had a meaningful engagement, or that that threshold may never be met. Again, what I would say is that best endeavours have been undertaken to strike a balance. No system is perfect, though, and again I would be on a fool’s errand to suggest that this would cure any and all areas of dissatisfaction for people within the community or indeed for people on the other side of a decision like this. This is again where VCAT’s process is actually guided by, including through these amendments, the support of a decision ‘in the interests of just, timely and efficient proceedings’, including with reasons provided to the party. To the extent that ‘meaningful’ might then sit in the same landscape as the term and the concept of ‘just’, that is indeed the thing that underpins these amendments.

Another question with regard to this time transparency and permit processes. Can you elaborate a bit more on what the processing criteria for determining if a planning permit application is complete is? Particularly how it will handle more complex applications.

Permit application processes are amended by the bill to the extent that they deal with incomplete applications, so this is the capacity for responsible authorities to undertake an initial check within five business days of receipt of a permit application to determine if the required supporting information and application fee have been provided. That is a threshold matter for the purpose of the making of an application in the first instance. If, after a request, that information is not provided, the application will be considered ‘void and of no effect’. That will then reduce the number of further information requests that are currently made for basic information. That is about making sure, again, that where that threshold requirement is not met, a matter does not proceed any further. There are material detriment guidelines which will enable clarification of the matters that a responsible authority must consider when determining whether the grant of a permit may cause material detriment to others, and this will assist responsible authorities in identifying the person or entity to whom notice should be given when giving notice of an application. That is again about making sure that we do have that clarity around process.

Permit expiry is the other matter here, which will extend the default planning permit expiry times for the use and development of land from two years to three years to commence a use or development and five years to complete a development. That is about reducing administrative burden for responsible authorities and also providing more certainty for permit-holders, and it does not actually alter the matters which must be considered if a permit-holder wishes to extend a permit beyond that period.

I will move now onto some questions regarding renting. We have spoken a bit already about data protection for renters, so I will not duplicate any of those questions we had earlier. In your response to Mr Davis you indicated, regarding enforcement of regulations for data protection measures for renters and ensuring that renters’ privacy is not compromised, that that would sit with CAV. Could you elaborate more in practical terms on what that means?

Consumer Affairs Victoria has a very strong record of developing, managing and implementing enforcement processes. That might be spot checks. It might be a range of other activities that ensure that they have the best measure of coverage around issues that they proactively seek out or the processes whereby they deal with any complaints of misuse of information or breach of these provisions in the bill as they will be, where we do have passage of this bill, part of the act. The director of Consumer Affairs Victoria Nicole Rich has always been very proactive in this space, and that will be part of the process between now and the default commencement date in November.

On the spot checks that you have just mentioned, does the government anticipate that any of these will be utilised to ensure the data protection measures are implemented appropriately?

Again that would be a matter for Consumer Affairs Victoria, but spot checks are in fact a part of the work that CAV does in a range of circumstances around its statutory remit. Spot checks are a really good way to understand what compliance looks like. In other parts of this bill what we have seen is that understanding of the impact of rental bidding, for example, and what that means to oversight and to have some crackdown on. We have seen blitzes happen in Fitzroy and in Clayton and in other areas where we do have large volumes of rental properties and large demand for those properties. Spot checks are one asset in the toolkit, is what I would say, but again, that will be a matter for the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria. That would not be a new thing for Consumer Affairs Victoria to be looking to deploy, but having said that, that is not a decision that has been taken or that I intend to try to foresee on my feet here today.

I think you have foreshadowed my next question. I will not go into rent bidding, because we have covered that ground quite extensively already. But on application fees, can you detail a bit more how the ban on application fees regarding rental arrangements will be monitored and enforced to ensure we see compliance by landlords and agents?

One of the things that we do know is that it is so important that we are cracking down on rental providers and agents passing on the cost of checking tenancy databases to a renter and banning rental providers and agents from charging any fees for these services. Again, it is a process which without these penalties has the potential to be financially crippling for people who are looking for a tenancy somewhere, anywhere. When we are talking about a market which has been so competitive for potential renters and for applicants, to have to pay a fee time and time again we can see is a real punitive measure and constitutes real disadvantage for people who do not have the benefit of a mortgage, to the extent that that is something other than a burden to meet in current economic circumstances. This is where, again, the work around applications is something that sits alongside payments being charged in order to process rent. There are two components to this part of the bill. It is also then about making sure that we have got those additional reforms to ban all fees for the payment of rent, regardless of the method used – so all rental payment options must be free.

The process for enforcement and complaint will be through complaints to Consumer Affairs Victoria as well as potentially by bringing that into the rental taskforce. That is then, again, an opportunity for a dual mechanism for people to be able to make complaints about any process whereby payments are requested or are a condition of the cost of checking a tenancy database or indeed for the purpose of the payment of rent.

With regard to addressing the issues you have outlined, you have mentioned both the taskforce and CAV. Does the government have any anticipation of what types of issues would go to one body or the other?

Again, it may well end up being a process of collaboration. It comes down to a range of things: the development of regulations, the work that CAV is already doing and the process whereby the taskforce can have the resources necessary to be able to ensure that these payments are not being required as a condition or a precondition of a rental arrangement or of a lease being issued, where payment is required for the purpose of processing a rental payment itself. The renting taskforce itself actually sits within and is part of Consumer Affairs Victoria. So that might help you in terms of what that looks like. Again, they sit very closely with the work of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria and the work of VCAT. This is about making sure that we do have all parts of the system working together, but CAV is the umbrella within which the taskforce operates.

That does help. Just a query: with regard to raising a complaint about an application fee being put forward, things that we are trying to get rid of with this bill, would it be expected that that would go through the form on the CAV website, similar to the arrangements you have outlined earlier this afternoon?

Again, that would be a matter for Consumer Affairs Victoria, but they do have a really comprehensive website. It is designed to be user-friendly; the interface is deliberately accessible. Again, the work of the taskforce is well within CAV, and you can find out plenty on the website already. It is a very useful vehicle by which complaints can be made, and this would be a complaint. It would be up to the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria as to where and how that information would be provided, but access as a point of contact through online engagement is a very common part of the way in which people can seek reviews or indeed escalate complaints or even initiate proceedings as part of the world in which we live now.

So for some of those processes and for some of the provisions under this bill, are they then reliant on a member of the public knowing what that website is, how to access it and how to fill in that form for their complaint to be managed?

Yes, a complainant needs to be able to know, firstly, about their rights, and an alleged transgressor of responsibilities needs to know about their responsibilities and also the sanctions that sit alongside that. This is where again in developing the regulations and in this process between now and the default commencement date in November, it will be a really important opportunity for stakeholders to participate in a process of development and of design of systems and of interface between the public and regulatory bodies, between regulatory bodies and other regulatory bodies, and between agents, representatives and owners corporations again with those bodies. So there is a lot of work to do between passage of the bill and the default commencement date, but again education is another part of this work, making sure that there is a good level of community literacy around these processes and around what they do to provide a set of remedies and to level the playing field. That is not dissimilar to any type of change to a regulatory system. You will recall when the amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 came through in a raft of reforms that that was as much as anything about a public education campaign around what tenants can and cannot do and around the reforms, for example, on rent gouging. We are seeing a steady increase in consumer literacy but also party respect for what responsibilities look like and what obligations look like, as much as anything because of an awareness of the penalties that will apply for any breach.

On that community literacy that you have raised, what steps is the government taking to build that so that we know that these laws are in place, that they will work and that they will be utilised by renters for their own justice?

Community education is part of the work of government every day in many, many ways, so as the regulations are developed and as those partnerships and that collaboration and consultation continues – whether it is with the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, whether it is through Consumer Affairs Victoria, whether it is through understanding within the planning system and what local councils understand – this will be used in every possible configuration to disseminate information as it is settled and to make sure that we are removing any ambiguity because of a lack of understanding of what the new systems will look like. This is geared entirely towards beneficial access to processes for the purpose of better outcomes. For example, in Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria when we are talking about landlords and their opportunity to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process rather than a legal proceeding, that is being done as much as anything to preserve that relationship where it can be preserved and to ensure that it is not only conferring benefit on a consumer but also avoids costs for property owners and for those people who are landlords.

Just on minimum rental standards, can I ask what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that all rental properties meet those minimum rental standards before they are leased?

As you would be aware, since March last year the rental taskforce has been doing a lot of work on the inspection of properties across the state to make sure that those properties meet those rental minimum standards for safety as well as for livability. There have been blitzes, as I said earlier, in Fitzroy and Clayton to make sure that those rental properties meet minimum standards, and this is ongoing work as part of blitzes. We know that blitzes work, and we also want to make sure that in introducing penalties we are disincentivising rental providers and estate agents from advertising rental properties that do not meet minimum standards at the time of advertisement. This is about not just advertisement but also occupancy. Prospective renters can also use a new online complaint form on the Consumer Affairs Victoria website to report concerns anonymously, and this is where again we are doing a lot of work to make sure that we do have that effective consumer interface with the work of those penalties and that improvement in minimum standards.

It will be an offence for a rental provider or their agent to advertise, offer or let rental premises that do not meet those standards at the time of advertisement or when an offer to let is made. That will enable the director of CAV to exercise enforcement powers where a complaint is made to ensure that rental providers meet minimum standards before occupancy occurs. There will also be a power for the director to inspect premises offered for rent to check whether they comply with minimum standards. This is about making sure that renters do not have the burden of having to seek an urgent repair after moving in. You know, if they discover, for example, that there is a vast amount of mould in their bathroom and once the immediate smell of air freshener or freshly brewed coffee in a property at inspection has wafted off people are not left with a home that is not by any measure something that complies with those minimum standards.

Just looking at I believe it is clause 16 in the relevant part of the bill, staying on this topic, I believe it reads ‘reasonably believes the premises comply with the rental minimum standards’. Could you expand on who determines this and how it is determined?

‘On reasonable grounds’ is one of those tests that requires a decision-maker to assess the circumstances in each case and to make a determination from there about what is reasonable. In this instance that would be a job for the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria or their delegate.

Moving on to protecting renters from eviction, the bill, as you have indicated, extends the notice period to vacate from 60 to 90 days. The Greens have welcomed that, as I said in my speech. Effectively what that is talking about though is giving tenants more time to process what often is a highly consequential and can be a quite dramatic change for them in relation to their own housing security. We often see landlords using rent increases to effectively serve as an eviction notice to their renters, whereby the rent is increased to an amount that the tenant can no longer pay and therefore they cannot continue their existing rental arrangement. Given the cost-of-living crisis that we are currently in, can I ask what is being done to combat this practice of eviction via rent increase, and is there any provision in this bill that speaks to that?

The very short answer is yes. We do want to make sure that the additional time provided in that notice period of 60 to 90 days creates that measure of certainty for people to be able to make plans around the next steps for them as far as accommodation and tenancy is concerned. This is where the rent review processes and restricting rent increases between successive fixed-term rental agreements are really important, making sure that we can address that emerging trend where some rental providers have evicted renters, as you have indicated, at the end of a fixed-term rental agreement in order to raise the rent substantially when relisting a rental property or by increasing the rent to a point where people cannot afford it and therefore have no choice but to leave.

There are measures in this bill around addressing increases to rent and the rent review process. It is about making sure that we can enhance rent matters that are already able to be considered by the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria from determining whether proposed rent is excessive beyond rent payable for comparable rentals, the state of repair and general condition of the premises, any change to rent and condition of the rented premises or facility since the commencement of the residential agreement and the number of rent increases in the preceding 24 months. Additional matters will be informed by stakeholder consultations, and that might include the size or amount of a rent increase or the difference between the current and proposed rent; the state of repair of a property or the condition of a property, including any outstanding requests for repairs; and whether there have been any improvements made to the property since the last rent increase for that property and the nature of those improvements. This is about making sure that we can have a rent review framework that supports the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria and VCAT in carrying out that rent review function.

Of course there is more work to do in making sure that work can be done to help renters with a really significant set of cost-of-living pressures. That goes on as part of a range of different reforms and measures to assist people, whether that is the private rental assistance scheme, whether that is bond loans in the social housing system, whether that is anything from – the power saving bonus, for example, is one way to assist people. It is indirect, but again, it is part of addressing what the bottom-line impact to households looks like at the end of the day. The rent review process is part of that in making sure, again, that there is a measure of fairness in the way in which rental increases occur.

Another reform you have mentioned a few times today, both in your summing-up speech and on the floor with Mr Davis, is the model that exists in some parts of the world of transfer of tenure of an existing tenant. You used the German example where property is sold to a new owner. Can I ask why there is not such a provision in this bill?

I note you did not actually use the German title for it, and that is okay. I will forgive you on this occasion.

It was a policy decision not to go down that path, but having said that, the reforms that are part of this bill build upon a raft of changes to the Residential Tenancies Act that are all intended to provide renters and also consumers of a rental framework with a measure of certainty, transparency and equity as well as access to remedy, at the same time as giving landlords, property owners and owners corporations a measure of consistency across the way in which the system works, operates and has that standing because of consistent training, professional development and registration.

So that policy decision you have described – what factors led to it?

That is not a policy that is set out in the housing statement, and this is guided by the housing statement.

Now, if we are lucky, I think I have got one more. On owners corporations – under this bill, are you able to highlight any provisions that speak to the structural decision-making power that owners corporations have over, say, a whole building? Do any of these provisions –

A member interjected.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Sorry, I do not want to interrupt.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Puglielli has the call, and people could give him the courtesy of listening to his question. The minister does have to answer it.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Thank you, Deputy President. I will repeat the question. Under this bill, are there any provisions that address the structural decision-making power that owners corporations have over, say, a whole building?

It is not actually in this piece of legislation that is being amended by this omnibus bill today.

If I just might briefly explain the running sheet and explain to people the set of amendments that we will put. There is a set of amendments. There is a large number of amendments, because this set from parliamentary counsel proposed that we amend clauses individually, one by one. There are three sets of amendments. The first relate to the notice to vacate, and it is our intention that we would move an amendment to not have those aspects of the purposes clause that relate to vacation of rental properties, so we would not have those in there. That is a test, but nonetheless we will also seek to omit clause 25, the relevant clause there.

On the Planning and Environment Act 1987 changes, and there are many of these through this long list, I have taken the advice of the clerks, which is to group these, and they are grouped, as you will see, with the yellow on the running sheet. I should just say that there are a number of amendments here and that for convenience it is probably easier to do it that way. There are some amendments in the list that are less objectionable and some that are more objectionable.

I did seek some advice from some planners who gave me some formal written advice which was very helpful on these matters, and it is worthwhile to just briefly put some of that on the record. They put it in the form of a table, and they went down the list of proposed amendments and the proposed legislative clauses. The government claims at a number of points that these are related to the red tape commissioner’s advice. What the planners and Michael Buxton and his group did is they looked closely at this, and they found that only two of the amendments could really be said to be related to the matters that the red tape commissioner had proposed. Most of the rest, despite the government’s attempt to gild the lily as it were and to say that these were all about the red tape commissioner, overwhelmingly were not. I should just touch on a number of these. I will not do all of them, but I will cover a flavour of them.

The new section 16A and 16E requests for a municipal council to prepare an amendment and which allow for proponents to apply for an amendment and provide a process for councils to accept and refuse, we do not particularly oppose. New sections 16F(1) and 16G(2) enable low-impact amendments for the purpose of new section 16N(1)(a) and include references to the SRL minister for SRL-related amendments. We see these low-impact amendments as entirely sinister. We do not think they are to be relied upon with the planning minister or other ministers in this respect. New section 16N, the low-impact amendments, these are included in a class. The minister may determine that a use or development is low impact and may prepare amendments which are nominated as low impact. This is a class yet to be finalised. One of the comments is that it may be added to any time without oversight. The provision gives unlimited power to the minister to decide what is low impact and then to initiate and approve the amendment. We just think this gives unbridled, overriding power to the minister, and in this government we would not give those powers to any minister. The ministers need to be pulled back rather than given greater unbridled powers to override communities and suburbs and councils.

New section 23A provides that after a decision is made on a low-impact amendment a planning authority may prepare or not proceed with an amendment or abandon it. Consequential to the above is the comment. New section 28(1) deals with abandoning amendments – a planning authority must notify the minister of reasons for abandoning an amendment and forward submissions. Whilst this is unobjectionable in itself, we see it as preparatory to new sections 28A to 28D, which provide that if a planning authority abandons an amendment, the minister may become the planning authority to continue the amendment process and decide whether or not to refer the amendment to a panel. Again, a council might decide not to proceed, but the minister can do what they like from there pretty much. At present, if a council abandons an amendment – is the comment – it lapses. The minister may take it up as a separate process, but the new provisions do not require a new process. The sections are a major expansion of the minister’s powers, is my comment.

In new section 52A, the minister may issue guidelines about material detriment – whether a person may be materially affected by an amendment. In new 57B(2A), guidelines must be considered when considering whether to grant a permit would cause material detriment. Material detriment is undefined. Guidelines may define it and may leave determination to be subjective.

In new section 68(1), permits are to extend from two to five years and, if no time is specified, to three years. Five years is a major change. We might have been quite reasonable about a modest change, but five years is a very long time.

In new section 96C(1) and (1)(a), a planning authority must consider ministerial guidelines in determining whether granting a permit would cause material detriment. Again, this clause expands ministerial power over the determination of material detriment.

In new section 97E(1), a minister may refer to a panel any objections or submissions, including late objections or submissions. Again, it expands ministerial power. It could be used for good; it could be used for ill. Under this government it would be largely used for ill, in our humble view.

In new section 97E(5), the minister need not consider the report of a panel if the minister considers that delay in considering whether to grant the permit may adversely affect the applicant – the commentary on this is: it expands ministerial power on the basis of subjective determination – or where the delay adversely affects the application. There has been no attempt to specify criteria for such a judgement.

In new section 23(5), a planning authority must not refer to a panel any submission which it considers frivolous – wholly subjective factors, is the comment, possibly leading to abuse and injustice. There are no criteria for what are regarded as frivolous, vexatious and so forth.

In new section 158C, the panel may treat like submissions as one submission if it decides the submissions raised or the wording used in the submissions are substantially the same. This is – in the commentary provided to me – a substantial denial of individual rights. Multiple objections may object to the same issues. Similar wording may be used because of similarity of issues. Slight variations and emphases may be significant. No criteria are outlined, leading to the subjective judgments that are involved here.

In new section 158D, the panel will either receive a nomination, or if there is no nomination, it will select a lead submitter for like submissions. The commentary here is: it is a continuation of potential injustice to individuals.

In new section 158E, the panel may decide not to hear any other person for like submissions. If no lead person is chosen, the panel is not required to hear from any other person for the designated like submissions. This – in the commentary – is a continuation of potential injustices to individuals.

In new section 158G, the minister may direct the panel to consider submissions or documents or consider ministerial guidelines. Again, the commentary is that this is an expansion of ministerial power, and we would wholly agree that this is a significant expansion of ministerial power.

In new section 159A, a panel may direct that a conference of experts be held, excluding the person engaging, experts, submitters and legal representatives, and then a report is to be prepared. The commentary that was provided to me says it further entrenches the influence of experts in VCAT hearings. The use of experts has become one of the main problems with administering justice through hearings as most expert evidence is commissioned by applicants and much is orientated to a desired result. I think many know that to be fundamentally true.

In new 83AA, VCAT may treat two or more objectives as a group if statements rely on similar grounds or raise similar issues. The comment here is: see 518C. I am not going to go through all the detail of that again.

In new section 94A, VCAT may take a wide range of measures to manage proceedings, including limiting submission times, prohibiting or limiting cross-examinations, proceeding entirely on the basis of documents, striking out matters which VCAT considers have a lack of substantive or objective merit and no chance of success. This is a major expansion of powers to the detriment of those who would seek remedy through VCAT, and the commentary here is some measures proposed appear reasonable, but the ones listed here may deny justice to individuals if unreasonably administered. That is a set of expert commentaries on many of the amendments here.

But I want to just put this very briefly in a few sentences in the broader context: the government has taken huge powers to itself. It is seeking to change Melbourne. It is seeking to do that at a massive rate. It is not involving communities. It is not involving councils properly. We think that more powers to this government in this planning area is a concern. So that is those planning matters.

Finally, in this list of amendments, probably the least controversial of them all and the one probably the most likely to achieve some support in the chamber is the proposal for a review of the act, and we think that is a very, very reasonable proposal. Our amendment 10 would seek a review to be conducted by the minister, in consultation with the Attorney-General and the Minister for Planning, on the second anniversary and that that be tabled. That is, we think, a very modest proposal and a reasonable step, so I have just tried to summarise those as briefly as I can. Three parts: the residential tenancy part, the planning part and a request for a review. I move:

1. Clause 1, lines 6 to 8, omit all words and expression on these lines.

2. Clause 1, page 2, lines 1 and 2, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

They are a test for amendments 5, 9 and 11.

The government will be opposing the opposition’s amendments in this regard, and again I would put on the record my disagreement with a number of the characterisations of the rationale for these changes and their intended and probable effect. We have different views, Mr Davis, but the purpose of this bill very clearly is to make sure that consumers are given a measure of certainty, that renters are afforded a measure of respect and that owners and property managers, real estate agents and people who are part of the broader system have that consistency and transparency that can only make for a better system, better decisions and a complement to the work and the reforms that we have already done.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived.

I move:

3. Clause 1, page 4, lines 6 to 12, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

4. Clause 1, page 4, lines 14 to 17, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

These relate to the planning matters.

The government will not be supporting these amendments.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 24 agreed to.

Council divided on clause 25:

Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 26 to 48 agreed to.

New Clause (17:15)

I move:

10. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 48 –

‘48A New Part 14A inserted

After section 527 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 insert –

“Part 14A – Review of operation of Act

527A Review of operation of Act as amended by Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Act 2025

(1) The Minister, in consultation with the Attorney-General and the Minister for Planning, must cause a review of the operation of this Act as amended by Part 2 of the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Act 2025 to be commenced after the second anniversary of the day on which Part 2 of the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Act 2025 came into operation.

(2) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 14 days after its completion, but no later than the fifth anniversary of the day on which Part 2 of the Consumer and Planning Legislation Amendment (Housing Statement Reform) Act 2025 came into operation.”.’.

Amendment 10 inserts a new clause, and this is for a review of the operation of the act in two years.

The government will not be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on new clause:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

New clause negatived.

Clauses 49 to 117 agreed to.

Council divided on part heading preceding clause 118 and clauses 118 to 134:

Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Part heading and clauses agreed to.

Council divided on part and division headings preceding clause 135 and clauses 135 to 143:

Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Part and division headings and clauses agreed to.

Council divided on division heading preceding clause 144 and clauses 144 to 149:

Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Division heading and clauses agreed to.

Council divided on part heading preceding clause 150 and clauses 150 to 162:

Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Part heading and clauses agreed to.

Council divided on part heading preceding clause 163 and clauses 163 and 164:

Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Part heading and clauses agreed to.

Council divided on division heading preceding clause 165 and clauses 165 to 169:

Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Division heading and clauses agreed to.

Clauses 170 to 172 agreed to.

Council divided on part heading preceding clause 173 and clause 173:

Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Part heading and clause agreed to.

Clauses 174 to 192 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (17:40): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (17:40): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

I just want to thank all of the staff and advisers who have assisted in the preparation of this bill to get to this point today.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (17:41): I was just going to say there are some things in this bill that we strongly supported, but there are other parts that we did not. Unfortunately, many of the planning amendments in there give greater power to the minister and that has forced us into a position to vote against the bill overall.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (17): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.