Tuesday, 19 March 2024

Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Gabrielle Williams:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (17:14): I am delighted to rise and make this contribution at long last at this hour of the day regarding the Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024. It really is an interesting bill, in that it does very little. It talks about a lot of things, but it does very little when you read the bill, and then when we got briefed by the government we got even less. So that is the concern we have with this bill, because there is not a lot in it apart from some ambitious ideas – some terrific ideas – and I think some of those ideas are fantastic. At the end of the day, though, there has been no evidence that they exist, in the bill or in the bill briefing. One of the key aspects of the legislation – of all legislation – is having a clear plan for how it will work, what the time frames will be and how long that might take, and with this bill we have asked for the rules to allow funding for the Victorian Property Fund and the Residential Tenancies Fund, and to set up and pay the ongoing costs of the new dispute resolution advocacy body that they are proposing in this bill, which all sounds well and good until you read through and you cannot find any of that detail in the body.

Roma Britnell interjected.

Tim McCURDY: And this is not the first time. The member for South-West Coast reminds me that for plenty of bills we get all this huff and puff. Even the second-reading speech, which I will go into in a moment, reads very well, and the media that goes with it, but in the bill there is very little detail. What we also do not know is what the costs are going to be, and other bits and pieces that usually would be planned and thought out before the legislative wheels start turning. So the lack of detail is astounding, and in fact I would call it appalling. In order to get more information, we had that briefing, which threw up even more questions. We did our research, we checked with stakeholders, and yet there was still nothing.

To provide some context I want to discuss the background of the bill. In September 2023 the then Andrews government introduced and released Victoria’s housing statement. Part of the grand plan to fix housing in Victoria was the establishment of a dedicated dispute resolution body to be called Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria, RDRV for short. Amongst the claims at that point was that it would help to slash the VCAT backlog, of which there are some 64,000 cases, I understand, and that would give tenants a greater opportunity to access prompt dispute resolution. Of course we are all for making sure that this dispute resolution, or some sort of dispute resolution, gets fast-tracked, because it is important that we do get to the bottom of these 64,000 cases. But I would have thought in the months before and after releasing that statement, more work would have gone into deciding how the RDRV operates and functions, that Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria. It is a catchy name – sounds terrific.

In order to do this the bill amends the Victorian Property Fund and the Residential Tenancies Fund for the acceptable use of the funds and allows them to be used to establish and fund the ongoing costs of the new dispute resolution and advocacy service. But there is no mention of what the service is or will be. Further to the bill, it also abolishes the Estate Agents Act 1980 and the Public Records Advisory Council and replaces them with –

A member interjected.

Tim McCURDY: Well, again, we are not sure what it replaces them with. It is incredible that the government, who do not know what this new dispute resolution body will look like or what its powers will be, feel that they no longer need that consultation. With the housing crisis, there is more need for consultation than ever before. It is critical that a body of peak industry and tenant experts are advising on issues in the sector, and the government has not provided any time frames or when a replacement body will be established. They have not provided any detail on what that body will look like or whether it will be legislated or created through regulation, and again, too many bills come through this house with this broad legislative approach, and when we try to get into more detail of what we are being asked to either support or oppose, whatever the position might be, we have no detail, and this is another example. This is the old, ‘Trust us, we know what we’re doing and we’ll let you know what it looks like at the end,’ and we simply cannot trust this government. So we do not know the new advisory group members – who it will be made up of, how they will be appointed or any details or any of that substance.

The most fascinating thing to me was the second-reading speech, where it said this new resolution dispute centre organisation will be ‘faster, fairer and cheaper’. I was very excited to hear that it is going to be faster, fairer and cheaper. Because of this backlog I said, ‘Well, I’m thrilled. Could you tell me how it’s going to be faster, fairer and cheaper?’ And the response I got back was, ‘Well, we haven’t got there yet. We haven’t got that level of detail.’ That is misleading the house to say it is going to be faster, fairer and cheaper in the second-reading speech when you have absolutely no idea that that is how it is going to happen. I will give you the quote directly out of the second-reading speech:

The proposed establishment of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria is a significant reform. This service will be a faster, fairer and cheaper way to resolve a range of rental disputes and will enable the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to use its resources to address more complex matters such as disputes around termination of residential rental agreements or applications for an order for possession of rented premises.

Now, again, this is not aspirational, saying ‘This is what it could do’ or ‘This is what we hope it will do.’ In the second-reading speech it is saying, ‘This is what it is going to do.’ I think the minister really needs to consider withdrawing that piece out of the second-reading speech, because I think at the very least we need an explanation as to how you can put that in there when there is absolutely no detail in the bill or anywhere else. If any of the other government members who may speak on this bill have got information about how it is going to work and how it will operate, I would be thrilled to hear it. I will be absolutely delighted if they could share that with us. If they do have it, I ask: why haven’t we got it? If we have not got it, have you got it, and if not, well, what are we debating at the end of the day? We are debating a good idea. That is what we are really doing.

It also says the bill closes the Sex Work Regulation Fund in line with the decriminalisation of sex work in Victoria and makes minor other statutory revisions and amendments to update language. As touched on in my introduction, the lack of detail and foresight from the government is concerning. To have not done your homework and planned ahead is an appalling level of disrespect, I think, to this Parliament and to the broader Victorian public. As a result, I would like to move a reasoned amendment. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government provides:

(1) proof that tenants and rental providers will not be disadvantaged by the bill;

(2) more information about how the Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria (RDRV) will work;

(3) a breakdown of costings and how the RDRV will be funded;

(4) advice on the timeline of when each stage of establishing the RDRV will be reached and for full operations;

(5) details on how the minister intends to seek advice in the absence of the Estate Agents Council (EAC) and Public Records Advisory Council (PRAC); and

(6) details on what bodies will replace the EAC and PRAC, including plans for appointments, remuneration, and public information about those bodies.’

As I have said earlier on, we have got real concerns about the lack of details in the bill and about how the funds from the Victorian Property Fund and the Residential Tenancies Fund will be used. The bill does not explicitly mention RDRV; however, the minister has mentioned it in her second-reading speech, as I mentioned. The government announced RDRV with their housing statement last September, and they had this to say:

We’ll establish Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria, providing a one-stop shop for renters, agents and landlords to resolve tenancy disputes over rent, damages, repairs and bonds. It’ll have a clear pathway to settle issues in a faster, fairer and cheaper way – freeing up VCAT for more serious or complicated matters.

Let us break that down into several topics. In this housing statement there are renters, there are agents and there are rental providers resolving disputes over rent, damages, repairs and bonds. Now, renters, if I start with those: how are renters going to benefit from this? Unfortunately, there are unscrupulous operators – and we know that – who are not meeting the standards that tenants require, and they deserve to be called out and forced into action. This body will help renters resolve these disputes in a timely manner only if it is managed well. There is the key to it – managed well.

There are many things that this government take on that are certainly not managed well. We have seen VCAT go from faster, fairer and cheaper to be a judicial milestone of lawyers and bureaucracy, with 64,000 on the residential tenancies waitlist as of March 2023. So the government needs to provide details on how it will ensure that RDRV will remain cheap and not end up like VCAT, with people lawyering up; how it will be fairer than the current system – which is supposed to be fair; and how it will avoid the huge backlogs that we see at VCAT. How will it enforce its decisions: will they be binding on both parties? What is stopping parties from not recognising the authority of RDRV and either ignoring a ruling or going straight to VCAT for a different decision?

Now let us look at the agents. How are agents going to benefit from these changes? Will it make it easier for them to resolve disputes with tenants, further to this? The government claims it will resolve disputes over rent, damages, repairs and bonds, yet we do not know whether there will be a dollar limit to the jurisdiction of this body and what will define an extreme case of damage. For one home, $150 might be nothing, whereas in many others that we see it is an extreme case of damage. So where are the details? That is what we are seeking – these details.

We have also got concerns about the advocacy nature of the body and where it will be abused by the powers that be to become public policy activists, forgetting that their role is as a fair and independent body. Let us say they begin lobbying the government for policy reforms that would significantly benefit one group to the detriment of others – this would be a grave form of misconduct and abuse of impartiality. There need to be strict and strong controls to ensure that any and all advocacy is only restricted to an individual level.

RDRV also is claimed to reduce the VCAT backlog, which as mentioned before, was 64,000 as of March last year. In our briefing it was mentioned that resources may be pulled from VCAT to help establish and operate this body, which is counterintuitive to VCAT, which needs to be fixing the backlog. The government needs to properly resource VCAT, not divert resources away to fix issues that will just end up being transferred over to RDRV, which is this new body that they are planning to set up. It is easy to claim that all of a sudden you have cleared the backlog from VCAT when all you have done is transfer 50,000, 60,000, maybe 100,000 cases by the time you get to when this actually starts, which I understand could be 18 months or two years away. All they have done is transfer those 60,000, 70,000 or 100,000 cases over to RDRV and they can sort of sing to the world. We have seen them do it before: ‘We’ve got rid of the backlog at VCAT. Aren’t we great?’ This body is also, on a conservative estimate, as I said, 18 to 24 months away from being in operation, which means the issues at VCAT are just going to keep getting worse and worse and worse – and who knows where that number could end up by the time this body actually starts. You might think I do not want to see dispute resolution go forward, but I absolutely do, because we need this in our housing crisis. We need to make sure these disputes get resolved very quickly. This backlog cannot stay like it is.

We have to move forward, I get all that, but give us some details and we can support what you are trying to achieve here. When we get absolute donuts and then we get a government briefing that tells us less, you have got to understand we cannot just write blank cheques for the government and say, ‘Okay, we trust you. Go and give it a go, and we’ll see where we end up,’ because we have no idea what it is going to cost in this situation for renters or for property owners – what it will cost, the time frames and all that. So if you could just give us some detail – that is what I am hoping to hear from contributions on the other side. As the consultation has not even started – and knowing the government’s track record of the bloated consultation period that takes place – it could still be three or four years before this RDRV is established. In the meantime the waitlist for residential tenancy cases could blow out to, as I say, six figures or more.

The government has also provided no details on the costing of RDRV, potential or hypothetical, which is alarming and concerning given the government’s track record with cost blowouts and an inability to manage a budget. There are serious concerns that the Victorian Property Fund and the Residential Tenancies Fund could be sucked dry by this new body. Since 2016 the Victorian Property Fund has lost $237 million and has only seen a very slight recovery since COVID, and the Residential Tenancies Fund has only risen by $8.5 million since 2016, which indicates that both funds do not have the revenue to be able to sustain any additional expenses, let alone on an ongoing basis.

Furthermore, the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, the REIV, have genuine concerns about this, similar to what we have: no detail and no understanding. They cannot endorse it. They do not oppose the bill; again, like us, they say they are concerned about how this will look without the detail. They would like more detail and they would like to see it postponed until we get that detail. Many of us know that the VPF, the Victorian Property Fund, was originally designed to fund compensation claims from the consumer and the industry as well as provide grants for specific housing initiatives. It is concerning to the REIV that the valid original purposes of the VPF could be overridden by the demands of funding a significant new dispute resolution service. As I say, we do not trust the government to give them a blank cheque and say, ‘We’ll leave you to it and we hope you come out with a great outcome.’ I have got to say, Victorians do not either.

What we also do not know is how this is going to be set up: will it be set up by introducing additional legislation, or will it be set up through regulation and instruments? If it is not in the legislation, why don’t we wait until that legislation is ready to go and put both through at the same time in a similar bill or separately in complementary bills? And if it is regulation, why is the government so obsessed with avoiding Parliament and proper scrutiny and so reliant on using regulation to get around democracy? Again, the Premier preaches transparency but thrives on secrecy, and this is what we are finding in this bill. It is a simple question that deserves a simple answer from those opposite, and as I say, I am keen to hear their contributions and I hope they can shed some light on how this will actually all pan out.

I want to touch on the Estate Agents Council. There is a genuine concern in the industry about the abolishment of the Estate Agents Council and what it will mean for rental providers and estate agents. Given the trend of the government to focus on the needs of the tenant to the exclusion of all others, the industry is rightly concerned that their voices could be lost or at the very least left behind, so we need to get that detail. What is even more baffling is there is no proposed or planned replacement body for advising the minister. The government claims that this is designed to allow for more ‘informal, flexible and ongoing’ consultation. Well, I had a little bit of a chuckle when I heard that, that the government claims that this is designed to allow for more ‘informal, flexible and ongoing’ consultation. On this side of the house, we call that policy on the run; that is just making it up as you go. A lovely set of words, I have got to say – ‘informal, flexible and ongoing’ consultation – but it is definitely policy on the run. The issue with providing no details on what this new and modern advice group looks like is that it could be either a genuine representative body or an ad hoc echo chamber, and that is what we do not want to see. As I have said before, this is not the first time bills in this place have lacked detail, and it is far too regular – again, preaching transparency but delivering secrecy.

The Real Estate Institute of Victoria has expressed grave concerns. The fact that there is no legislative body to replace the Estate Agents Council at the end of June means the industry will then be less able to inform and participate in the legislation-making process and be less able to provide their advice and expertise to the minister and to the government. When seeking advice, all of the different views should be considered and reflected upon before an appropriate decision is made. The legacy of Labor in government seems to be less open and transparent decision-making and an over-reliance on grandstanding, consultants and union officials. That is why, in the reasoned amendment, we are seeking more information from the minister about how they intend to go about replacing the Estate Agents Council. The government also provided no detail on remuneration and the plans for appointments, which is critical to ensuring the minister is receiving the most unbiased and fair advice.

I also want to touch on the Public Records Advisory Council and the Sex Work Regulation Fund and other amendments. The Sex Work Regulation Fund is being closed down in line with the decriminalisation of sex work in Victoria, and given that there is no money coming in from fines and licensing and there is a negligible amount left in the fund, it makes sense to shut it down. It saves on administration costs and there is no need to have it there.

The abolition of the Public Records Advisory Council is disappointing. Again, we are losing another avenue of advice that is written into law. It seems to follow a theme of Labor ripping up the legal protections and oversights to instead be told what they want to hear instead of what they should hear. That being said, the Public Record Office Victoria does a stellar job of providing broader advice to public and community groups and will be able to ensure the correct procedures are being followed. Furthermore, the importance of maintaining and keeping good records in government is critical, and that cannot be understated. Good record keeping means more accountability to the people.

The government should never be afraid of being held accountable for their mistakes. We cannot afford this government to continue down this path of disregard for legislative protections and accountability. It was the Liberals and Nationals in government that gave the Public Records Advisory Council additional advisory powers, which were meant to enhance the role of the council and assist the minister and the public record office. As the then Premier Dennis Napthine said in 2014:

The Public Records Advisory Council will be given a new advisory function in relation to public records management. This will enhance the role of the council and ensure it is better able to assist the minister and keeper of public records.

I am keen to know: does the minister no longer require that additional advice and assistance? Does the keeper of public records also not need further advice? We are always cautious when governments, particularly this government, undermine the transparent legislative protections that ensure that Victorians are able to see who the key bodies are and ensure that their advice is balanced and reasonable. Unfortunately we have seen a long record of jobs for the boys from the previous Premier and now this one, with countless Labor staffers, union officials and former Labor members being given plum jobs on government boards. Who will be on this administration advisory board? By shutting down the legislative public bodies, is the government going to continue these abuses of power and impartiality behind closed doors and in the shadows?

There is also a list of minor amendments to update gendered language in this bill to non-gendered language and correct some grammar and typographical errors.

As I conclude, all the stakeholders who we sought feedback from also expressed concerns about the bill’s lack of information and detail. So its not just us, it is not just the REIV; it is other bodies, it is everyone who we spoke to. It shows that it is not just the opposition. We have genuine concerns but so do the community and the industry have concerns about this lack of oversight and proper processes being circumvented. It is another classic example of the government being all about the spin and not about the substance. There is an issue that they have created, and they have told us they are going to fix it. Instead of telling us how they are going to fix it, they are asking us to trust them while they fix it and hopefully do the right thing. Well, we cannot. They are fundamentally untrustworthy, and we never seem to be able to fix the issues that they have created. Time and time again Victorians are told by minister after minister that the issue of the day will be fixed and time and time again the government sit on their hands and do not do the work to introduce real substantive change. You only need look at the legislative program over the past few years to see they are running out of steam and struggling to get the basics right.

Where is the Premier’s plan? Where is the detail for us to take to the community and say that this change is happening and that we can have confidence in this change? Rather than fund the initial costs of consultation and the establishment of the RDRV through consolidated revenue, or the often forgotten and chronically underperforming Consumer Affairs Victoria, the government is so bereft of money they need to start raiding even more funds and piggy banks to make ends meet. They are so irresponsible with money, as we know, that they cannot pay for this new body themselves or by expanding CAV’s budget. Instead they need to dip their hands into the pockets of CAV and take more resources away from an already appallingly under-resourced agency.

We recognise the need for major reforms and the need for support for tenants in Victoria. However, we must not forget agents and rental providers in the process, because it takes all three to make this happen. You can get away with two, but ideally you need all three to make this a process that everybody has confidence in and that will work year in, year out for the majority of people involved in this sector. We need to consider all pieces of this puzzle – not just those who you believe might vote for you. You have got to consider all pieces of this puzzle.

We also ask the government to be more prepared when they introduce legislation like this. There seems to be a dearth of substantial legislation coming through the departments. It is rushed, and the bills are undercooked and underdone. You can tell they have not done their homework – they have not even done their class work with this one. To answer every question in the briefing with ‘We don’t know’, ‘We’re not sure’ or ‘We can’t say’ shows that more thought needs to go into bills before they come to this place. Again, you are asking too much if you say, ‘Trust us. We’ll fix a problem that we haven’t been able to fix before. It’s getting worse, but we’ve got a thought bubble and we think we can fix it in the future.’

That being said, we not going to oppose the bill, because we certainly want to see dispute resolution moving forward. We reserve our right in the Council to see how we can negotiate with the government to try and make sure that some opportunities might come to fruition to get more of that detail. But the lack of detail in the bill, as I said, really is appalling, and the secrecy is astounding. I hope that RDRV is successful because heaven knows Victoria needs that resolution body. We need to make sure that these disputes can get resolved quicker, because tenants are waiting, rental providers are waiting and agents get caught in the middle. It turns into a massive mess, and we all know that. The housing crisis we are in is all the more reason to move with this quickly. But this bill gives me no confidence that it is going to speed things up any quicker than they currently are without that detail. We need that detail. I simply do not have confidence in the government saying, ‘Trust us. We’re going to move forward’. That is why there is the reasoned amendment. I commend the bill to the house.

Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (17:42): With your indulgence, I would just like to begin by acknowledging the tragic hot air ballooning incident that occurred in Preston yesterday and express our sympathies to all those affected, including of course the family of the man whose life was lost, and express our gratitude to those who responded to that difficult and traumatic event.

Turning to the subject at hand, I rise today of course to support the Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024 and indeed to oppose the reasoned amendment put forward by the member for Ovens Valley. I do appreciate the member’s contribution. I know he had a long wait for it today, but in essence the member said he supported the bill – he supported all of it – but he would refuse to pass it until the minister provides every single detail of every single final policy initiative. I will just point out to the member that that is of course not how we do modern public policy development. We always start with a broad plan and work towards the details over time. This government consults all the way through that process, and that is what we will do with these particular reforms. I note the Minister for Climate Action is here at the table. That is how she has approached the important work she is doing in renewable energy. We do not know every detail of what that will look like in 2035, but we introduce the legislation as it is needed.

The member Ovens Valley also described this bill as having ‘not a lot in it’, and I do hope in my contribution to persuade him otherwise. The bill does primarily serve to implement the rental reforms that we announced in the housing statement. I will come back to them, but first I will just touch on some of the other aspects of the bill. As the member for Ovens Valley noted, some of the clauses update some language to non-gender-neutral language, which is very welcome. I point out to the member there is certainly no need to delay those clauses – we should get them done.

Clause 7 abolishes the Sex Work Regulation Fund, which continues this government’s decriminalisation of sex work, which is an important reform. Then clauses 9 through to 23 effectively abolish the Estate Agents Council and the Public Records Advisory Council. I think the minister has been very clear that the end of those particular bodies is certainly not an end to consultation. In fact I think she is very genuine in wanting to do consultation in a better and more engaging way, and these amendments will allow her and empower her to do so.

I do, though, want to take a moment to acknowledge the contribution of a lot of people to those bodies over a long, long period of time. I know that Judy Maddigan, who we just recently unveiled a portrait of, was the chair of the Public Records Advisory Council. Also, locally in Preston we have Daniel Scoullar, who has been a member of the Estate Agents Council, and I would like to acknowledge his service and indeed acknowledge his belief in a continuing body that represents the whole community and gives renters a voice. I know that is something that the minister has taken on board.

Then, just to complete our description of the bill, we have those very substantial clauses 4 and 5. They deal with the hypothecation arrangements that will deliver our reforms. I have observed in previous debates that treasurers do not always like hypothecation arrangements. Industry bodies with various degrees of justification try to ensure that fees and charges, interest and other things are then spent on initiatives in their industry areas, and that is certainly what we have with the Victorian Property Fund, which of course had a very long history as the Estate Agents Guarantee Fund, going back to the 1950s. Various things are paid into it, most notably the interest from house deposits, and then various industry initiatives are paid out of it, and of course today we are seeking with this bill to expand those things for which money can be paid out. Then clause 5 does a very similar thing with respect to the Residential Tenancies Fund. I think there is good reason for gathering those moneys together in those funds. As I said, there are probably questions about the administrative overheads of the hypothecation arrangements. But if we are going to have them, then today’s bill is certainly very welcome because it allows those funds to be spent on some important reforms and very specifically allows those funds to be spent on the costs and expenses of establishing and funding the ongoing operation of the alternative dispute resolution services, which the previous speaker discussed, and indeed also the provision of consumer advocacy and assistance services under the housing and property related consumer acts.

To go very centrally to the argument made by the previous speaker, those things are of course very broad descriptions of what we want to do. Our housing statement is very clear about the end point we want to reach. The point of today’s bill is simply to allow the funds to flow for that particular work, and as I have already stated, there will then be consultation on what those initiatives will look like. Nobody is trying to hide any of that. It is simply the case that we can get this bill out of the way and then get on with that work. There is no need to delay it, as the member seeks to do, before we have all that detail.

I do want to say there is a narrative in some circles that this government does not support renters rights and sometimes that we are allegedly in the pockets of billionaire landlords. That is very clearly not true. This government has a very strong record on renters rights. I almost must say I feel that critique leaves out the role of real estate agents in some of the challenges we face, and I think some of the poor behaviour we see originates not from landlords but from them. But it is very important today to place this bill in the context of the government’s larger rental reform agenda, which is one that supports renters. We have introduced maximum bond amounts. We have tightened up the rules regarding eviction and, I think very importantly, we now give Victorians 90 days notice. I think all of us in our electorate offices will have heard the difficult circumstances that people sometimes face when they are evicted from their rental property for what are legitimate reasons but it comes as a complete shock to them. I know that 90-day period will be valuable to some of the people we represent.

We require now fee-free methods of payment; I think that is important. We have basically got rid of some very exploitative things that people previously used to extract extra money out of their tenants. We now require disclosure if the property is on the market, which is not common but again addresses a thing that did happen where renters were not told that out of an attempt to extract the very last rental income out of a property that the owner knew they were going to sell.

Of course, very importantly, we have now introduced strong minimum standards with respect to a whole range of matters – locks, mould, electrical safety, lighting, heating and minimum appliances. I know now if you get into your rental property and the oven does not work, you can say to your rental provider that they must fix that problem. I know there is an ongoing debate. I know the minister is very open to further things we can do in that area. I did have an exchange the other day with Purplepingers about this issue. I am not sure how Hansard will record ‘Purplepingers’, but he is an online personality. It is true that under the current laws we are very concerned with renters rights and as such it is not possible to rent out a property that does not meet the minimum standard, but it is strictly speaking possible to advertise that property, because at the point where you are advertising it, if it is empty, you do not have a renter and you do not have a lease. I am not sure that is a highly consequential loophole in the long run, because evidently you cannot sign the lease, but I know it is the kind of thing that the minister is still very attuned to. She is of course very attuned to the degree to which those minimum standards should be retrospective, and I know she is attuned generally to the fact that in the community there are certainly areas in which we can further consider rental reform.

I know when I go doorknocking around Preston there are still people who are concerned about the amount of information that is collected when you apply for rental properties. You are now looking at a situation where some of us fill out 20 pages worth of referees and so forth. Compulsory direct debit arrangements are a concern to people, as is this practice of, in a tight market, forcing people to apply for a property before they are allowed to see it. Also I think there is some concern about the capacity for landlords to very sharply increase rents. I am just being honest; that is not the number one thing being raised with me, but I think for some people in the current environment it remains a worry.

I think most people understand that rent freezes would not be a good idea. People very much understand that the government cannot in this place just come in and set the prices for goods without a range of very obvious consequences with respect to supply and mobility. They know in fact that a rent freeze would dramatically hurt young people who are trying to get into the rental market, because of course the mobility would drop and supply would drop. Existing renters would of course benefit – that is fact – if we forced down rents, but new rental properties would simply not become available. There is a really good understanding in the community of that.

I think that there is certainly concern about dispute resolution and enforcement. That is towards the top of the list of things that come through. That is why I am so happy to be on my feet today supporting this bill, because ultimately this is a bill that will lead to better dispute resolution, and I think that is something that will be very positively received and will allow many of us in fact to sort out some often difficult circumstances that come to us in our role as representatives. I am very pleased to support this bill and commend it to the house and thank the minister and her team for really their ongoing work to make sure that renting is a safe and secure long-term option for Victorians.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (17:52): I have a contribution to make to the Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024, and as I speak on this bill I put on record straightaway that I will be supporting wholeheartedly the reasoned amendment that has been put forward by the shadow minister, the member for Ovens Valley.

The purpose of the bill that we have before us today is to facilitate the establishment of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria. Now, it is only to facilitate the establishment; it is not actually going to do any more than that. It is going to do so because it is about the funding model that is going to get it in place in the first instance. We do not know a lot about Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria other than that it has been mentioned. This body will be accessed by residential renters, landlords and agents, and it is around alternative dispute resolution. Not only is it around that dispute resolution but it will also have an advocacy mechanism for tenants and renters. The government announced this body as part of their housing statement, which was announced towards the end of last year. We do not have a lot of information about RDRV – I think I will call it that just to keep it short and sweet – but it is probably not unusual for the government to put something forward to this chamber and let us try and fill in a lot of the gaps.

We know one thing for certain: in this area with tenancy there are disputes. There can be disputes over all sorts of things. It can be over a rent increase or maybe a rent decrease, depending on something that may or may not be happening at the property at the time – damages, repairs and bonds. As I think about these sorts of issues that come up, I look at people I know that have been on either end of the disputes, whether it is because of mould or because of a room that is not tenantable because there has been damp or water has come through via flooding and different things. But also there are disputes, for example, where landlords are trying to get back into their home which is being rented. For whatever reason – they may have moved back from overseas or interstate, sold another property or want to move into that house while they renovate – they cannot easily get back into their own home.

So you can see that there are lots of disputes. The RDRV is basically being set up as an alternative dispute resolution body. The underlying principle of alternative dispute resolution is that it is fairer, it is cheaper and it is quicker. Also central is that it will alleviate pressure on the legal system. The first alternative dispute resolution sector that I was involved in way back was the WorkCover conciliation service when Jeff Kennett was elected. There were a lot of legal costs associated with any disputes and payments and it was taking a big toll on the courts, so they introduced ADR as a different mechanism to try and speed it up and get that backlog out of courts and save some of the costs that other lawyers were taking, because they in fact were the real winners.

I think it is fair to say that everybody in this chamber would want safe, secure and fair housing for everybody. The government talk about it a lot, but they do not really do much to deliver. What we have seen in this particular area is VCAT is absolutely bogged down. There are backlogs, delays and some 64,000 cases as of March 2023, so 12 months ago, from the residential tenancies list – 64,000. We do not have a lot of information, as I said, about the establishment of this body, but if it is 18 ‍months or two years away, that number is just going to grow more. What the alternative dispute resolution is aiming to do, as I understand it, is to take some of the simpler, easier stuff, the low-hanging fruit, out of VCAT so that they can deal with the things that tend to be a bit more complex and tricky, such as determination of residential rental agreements or an application for an order of possession of the rented premises.

What is happening out there in rental land at the moment? There is a cost-of-living crisis. This is hitting everybody. So we have a lot of pressure on the renters, as they have other bills and they have rents. This pressure certainly increases substantially. This could mean sometimes there are more disputes, and some of these may be minor matters. There are property owners subject to cost-of-living pressures as well, and they are hit with land tax bills. I just want to put on the record that the most recent figures about property ownership show 71.48 per cent of people have one property. You add another 18.86 ‍per cent that have two rental properties – that is 90.34 per cent. Then those with three rental properties are another 5.81 per cent. So all up, 96.15 per cent of people have three properties or less, the vast majority having one. These are typically people who are investing in their future and investing in their retirement. For those that only have one, often that is what they are living on. These property owners are also subject to increasing costs with the cost of living and the land tax bills that people are being hit with – increased land tax bills left, right and centre. We do have a lot of matters ending up in VCAT, and as I said, there are delays. With 64,000 people at least waiting, there is no resolution in a hurry.

What we do not know here is about the costings. We know it is going to be costed through the Victorian Property Fund and the Residential Tenancies Fund, so this is going to provide for the establishment and ongoing costs for alternative dispute resolution services. They are going to deal with a number of property- or housing-related acts – company titles, Conveyancers Act 2006, owners corporation, residential tenancies, retirement villages, rooming house operators, sale of land and maybe a couple of others. So there is quite a lot. We know where the government is establishing the fund, which is what this bill is doing, but we do not know a lot of the detail. What bothers me particularly is that this is another case of, ‘We’re the government; trust us, we know what we’re doing. We know everything.’ But we do not, because the bill is silent on this. The second-reading speech says a little, but we do not know how it will operate, what jurisdiction and authority it will have, the annual revenues and expenses, the resources it will provide to the community and how it is going to operate around VCAT. The government is kind of asking us for a blank cheque to get this sorted out, saying, ‘And then we’ll tell you the solution at some other point,’ and it may be a couple of years away.

There are another couple of areas regarding what this bill does. It amends the Business Licensing Authority Act 1998 to facilitate the closure of the Sex Work Regulation Fund. That fund has been a trust account, and it supported the operation of the sex work licensing and registration scheme. Things have changed; sex work has been fully decriminalised, so this fund is obsolete. There is no revenue coming in from the licensing or the fines. I am told that there is not a lot of money in that account. I do not quite know how much and if that will end up in a general slush fund or not.

The bill also abolishes the Estate Agents Council and the Public Records Advisory Council and makes a number of revisions and amendments updating gendered language et cetera. I think this abolition of the Estate Agents Council is a cause for concern, because it is how government consults with the industry. How is that going to go on in the interim? They have proposed that the alternative body will replace them and they are to be dissolved at the end of June 2024, but the industry have a lot to offer the government. The government do not know it all. They might like to think they do. They can do some sham consultation, but when they have representatives from the industry who really know and understand that, I think it is important that they do have that mechanism in place. We want to make sure that the government does not have any bias towards advice that is going to affirm decisions in one direction only and not take in views of the whole body and the peak body. I think something that I am quite concerned about is how that is going to operate.

For us there are a lot of unanswered questions here. Again, the bill is pretty simple, pretty flimsy, because it only really sets up the funding operations, and we do not know anything. The stakeholders there would like to know a little bit more, which is basically why we have put the reasoned amendment in. We want to make sure that the renters and the rental providers will not be disadvantaged by this bill. I think that is really important. We need to know how Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria is going to work. We would like to see the costings. I am really not one for trusting the government to tell us about costings and expenses, because we know the budget is just going further and further down the gurgler every single day. These are important issues that we would like to have established prior to this going through.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (18:02): I will seek to acquit a couple of matters that have been circulated and discussed in the chamber, but first, fundamentally setting out the purpose of the bill, the bill introduces amendments to the Estate Agents Act 1980 – the EA act – and Residential Tenancies Act 1997 to expand the use of funds from the Victorian Property Fund and Residential Tenancies Fund, marking the first step in establishing the new alternative dispute resolution service as envisaged by the housing statement. It is an important incremental component in the development of more rapid and simpler dispute resolution.

I think this suggestion seeking to kill the bill is not actually resolving anything today. It is only delaying what is really a much-needed reform in terms of handling the amount of disputes that we are seeing in terms of renters and ensuring, basically, more fairness when it comes to renting – on both sides of the equation, I should say, whether it is the rental provider or the renter as well. Just because we are seeking a fairer and more expedient dispute resolution mechanism, that does not mean that we are seeking to facilitate a less inclusive process. On the contrary, one of the underlying purposive elements of these reforms is actually to contemporise the manner in which we consult and resolve disputes in this space, so to suggest that we are now going to exclude some of the most important stakeholders in this space is not well founded. I would also assert that you cannot on the one hand say, ‘Yes, we thoroughly support the bill, but we want to kill it,’ because that is exactly what the reasoned amendment would do if it were to succeed, and the series of elements that are within that reasoned amendment I will say respectfully suggest that there is a contrary intention, other than to support the bill, by the opposition.

I was also a little confused by different contentions about bloated consultation. I thought you wanted consultation, but now you are talking about bloated consultation; it is one or the other. Nobody is saying that there is not further work to be done in this space, absolutely. But last time I looked I thought we were in the chamber and we were discussing this up-front. So these assertions – and I have to say there is a rather negative and pejorative element to them – that there is secrecy surrounding this legislative reform are at best underhanded, because aren’t we in the chamber discussing the reform as we speak? No-one is resiling from the essential tenets of the bill, nor are we seeking to in any way embellish or otherwise add elements to the bill that are not there. I would suggest that in fact we are, as is right and proper, debating the bill as it is appropriate to do so.

We are mindful that having more expedient dispute resolution mechanisms is timely and appropriate when we look at the cost-of-living pressures, noting that more people perhaps than ever are seeking to rent. So it makes sense – I should say the process is well underway, and I want to seek to acquit some further elements – that we are committed to ensuring renters, agents and rental providers can seek timely resolution for tenancy disputes through the establishment of the new alternative dispute resolution service, Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria. Work is underway – no-one has said that work is complete – to deliver on the alternative dispute resolution service, and further information will be provided on commencement dates in due course. The establishment of RDRV is subject to further legislation and regulations, just to be clear on that point.

Furthermore, establishing a funding pathway through amendments to the Victorian Property Fund and the Residential Tenancies Fund is a critical step towards getting the new alternate dispute resolution service up and running, and those amendments will commence the day after the bill achieves royal assent. There is no secrecy around that. We are being quite up-front and specific on what the bill actually delivers, but we are not extending beyond what it does not deliver at this point in the legislative reform, or I should say the overall reform process, in delivering more fairness for renters.

I want to reflect on some personal experiences across the spectrum, positive and negative. I did rent for many, many years of my life. By no means have I in any way experienced the worst of what some renters may have experienced, and I am not suggesting that in any way, shape or form. But I do recall, for instance, it was about 13 years ago, I turned up the first day, I had just moved into the property and I could smell gas. I rang the landlord and I said, ‘I can smell gas’, and the landlord said, ‘Oh no, there won’t be any gas there. No, you’re imagining it.’ I said, ‘No, I can smell gas. This needs to be addressed.’ We had this longwinded discussion about my having to attest to the fact that I could smell gas. Eventually the landlord called a plumber, and lo and behold the plumber turned up and said, ‘Oh dear, there is a gas leak, it needs to be repaired immediately.’ But I must say it was quite demeaning having to go through this process, because why would I make up the fact that there was a gas leak? Why would I make it up? I am just putting it out there that I have personally witnessed a situation where a landlord was, frankly, being rude and patronising and should have behaved differently.

Another example in a different property that I was living in, I remember it had an old window and it stopped being able to hold up. I said to the landlord, ‘This window will no longer hold open,’ and they said, ‘Oh, it’s old – maybe you can put a block of wood in there, that’ll probably hold it up.’ And I am thinking, ‘Okay, so I’ve got to go out somewhere and find a block of wood to hold this window up because I don’t deserve to have a proper, functioning window that will go up and down.’ I do want to contrast that by saying that I did have other landlords who treated me well, who expediently repaired elements of the various properties that I was living in, but I am just putting it out there that I know how it feels when somebody is seeking to not deliver on minimum, basic requirements like being able to have an open window or make an urgent repair on gas.

I do want to balance this conversation. I have had a landlord who said – in a very kind and I should say supportive manner, so they were not being pejorative – that they had had a tenant that had caused somewhere in the vicinity of $60,000 to $70,000 worth of damage and had not paid rent for six months. That particular landlord was not seeking for me to actually resolve that matter. They were taking the matter to VCAT but just expressed the fact that the equation is not always fair and balanced on either side, to which point I will add that this is exactly why consultation incorporates all relevant stakeholders, whether it be the rental peak body representatives or industry and landlord representatives. That is only fair. No-one is suggesting that only one side, if I can put it in that way, or one version of events, so to speak, is satisfactory when we are looking at consultation on something as significant as making a fairer and more expedient dispute resolution process into the future.

On the other hand, as I have witnessed myself and have also had constituents reflect to me, there are situations where it is unfair and there are certain repairs that have not been undertaken in a timely manner and could actually be dangerous, and hence the impetus for the many reforms that we have already delivered as a government, including a requirement that external windows should be able to be opened and to be locked. These are some minimum basic standards, and I think everyone would be in agreement in the chamber that that is fair and reasonable – having a structurally sound building, a vermin-proof rubbish bin, deadlocks on external doors. These are some of the minimum basic standards that our government has already addressed. So you can see that there is nothing outlandish or over the top or exaggerated or unreasonable in those reforms that I have suggested so far – and there are 130 all up – and hence this is an iterative process. It is incremental change, but why undermine it at this fundamental point? We need to pass these reforms today in order to be able to advance the process of reform for the betterment of all, the renters and the landlords alike.

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (18:12): I rise to speak on the Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024 and first of all would like to say that I will support the amendment moved by the member for Ovens Valley. I note the last speaker said that it would effectively kill the bill. A reasoned amendment does not kill the bill. It just says, ‘Go back and do the work that you should have done before you brought the bill into the chamber.’ I have heard quite often during the debate from the other side, around this, that it is effectively bringing a good idea to Parliament and then we can have that debate in here about the good idea and then they can go and do the work. I actually thought that was what an election was: we go out to the community; we debate different ideas; we come up with what we think are the best options; one party will win. Obviously that is Labor on this occasion. They can then come in here with the work done.

A member interjected.

Brad BATTIN: The last three terms, and you still managed to bring in a bill with nothing in it. So it is actually quite interesting, isn’t it? For all these years, we have still got a government who can bring a document to this place with no real detail, and they try and sell this as fairness. They are trying to go out there and say, ‘We’re doing our bit when it comes to renters here in Victoria.’

We already know there are 64,000 cases on backlog with VCAT. So we know and the government knows something needs to change, because you cannot continue down the path you are doing at the moment with that level of people waiting in VCAT, because it does mean, unfortunately, that even urgent cases can take time to go through VCAT, people with legitimate claims. Whether it is from a landlord’s perspective or a tenant’s perspective, anything that is delayed can create issues on both sides of that, whether it is financial, physical or mental, on those people who are struggling with those challenges that they have to face.

But if they want to talk about fairness when they are talking about renting, if they want to talk about how we treat our renters fairly here in our state, the government should first and foremost look at the new rent tax that they have put on. Increasing land tax here in this state with a land tax bill that has effectively changed from the $300,000 threshold down to $50,000 and increased the amounts paid to land tax to cover the government’s failure of controlling the budget for such a long period of time – the impact of that is these costs go downhill. They do not stop halfway. The government is saying, ‘It’s all good. Those rich landlords out there, all those wealthy landlords, those police officers that own one home, the firefighters that own one home extra, the self-managed retirees who have got one property just to get by so they don’t actually take money off the government and are doing the right thing – what we’ll do is we’ll pass it on to them.’ But they then pass that on.

Yes, there are wealthy landlords out there. We cannot deny it. There are landlords out there with five or 10 – I have met one with a couple of hundred – properties, but it does not matter how big or small those landlords are, they are either in it for a business or they are in it to ensure that they can set themselves up to stay away from having to claim money off the government through Centrelink or any other support services later. That eventually ends up with an increase in the rent. Now, if you think about the last couple of years already, we have seen interest rate rises and we have seen new conditions come onto landlords and owners of properties where they do have to have minimum standards. We support the minimum standards. They have to have more inspections on properties now, including checking smoke detectors and checking for gas leaks – things that should be checked. We are not saying that should not happen. But each and every time this happens, the costs go up to run and maintain a property. On top of that there is insurance. The average insurance on an investment property in metropolitan Melbourne has gone up from under $1000 – most of them were around $800 – to about $1600, so that has nearly doubled. Those costs get passed on. Then you have got a government that wholeheartedly throws at them this new land tax, renters tax, that effectively get passed on to each and every renter here in Victoria.

When you look at some of the areas that I represent where we do have a lot of rental properties, that rent has gone up on average $100 a week over the past 12 to 18 months, and these are families. A lot of them cannot afford it or they were trying to put that old hundred dollars a week aside so they can live their dream and buy their own property in the future and have what we all want in having and owning our own home, but that opportunity is getting taken away from them more and more by this government.

What we need to do to ensure that these people have the genuine chance to own a property, which most of us would like to do, is make sure that housing is affordable. We have to make sure there is a rental market that is affordable for them to live in while they do that saving if they do not want to live at home or they want to go out and be independent. That is why when you come to a bill like this the member for Ovens Valley moves a reasoned amendment. It is understandable, because you cannot trust this government to not put in place things in the future through this bill with regulations that are going to impact on the costs of tenants here in our state.

If tenants want to see the breakdown of where their money goes, I am sure the Housing Industry Association will have it out shortly. Renters rights groups will start to break down as well where that money goes when you pay rent. It is not that often that the money just goes straight into the pocket of a landlord. It goes into insurance. It goes into all those other things I listed earlier with ensuring the property is updated. It goes into maintenance to ensure the property is maintained. It goes to the emergency call-outs. It goes to the agents that you have to have. It goes to the taxes. It goes to the percentage that you have to pay on your loans. By the time you have finished with all that, it actually leaves a limited amount of money there.

I am not saying that those people are not going to make money when they sell their property later on. They might have bought it for $500,000 and will sell it for $700,000 or $800,000, but they will pay their tax on that, which they rightfully should. The challenge is in between. If you are paying off a loan on that investment property, how are you then going to afford to try and keep the rent as cheap or as reasonable as possible, particularly during a cost-of-living crisis?

The other aspect of this is as the government continues to put these new taxes on more and more of these properties – and we saw it reported this week as 0.8 per cent, which is quite a small drop, but I can tell you it is going to be a lot bigger – a lot of investors are going to be getting out of the market, and they are going to put these houses back into the market for people to buy. It is not a position where it is flooding the market and now housing prices are dropping and therefore it will give people an opportunity to buy their own home. They are going to make their money still. They are going to sell at reasonably high prices in the current market, but it means there are less properties available for rent here in Victoria. If there are less properties, it is simple maths: how much you pay in rent is going to go up because it is done through supply and demand.

As the supply declines the demand is increasing, and we are already seeing videos of people where there are 60, 80 or 100 people lining up to rent a property in all different parts of Victoria. I even know in the growth suburbs, it used to be fairly recently that you would have 50 or 60 rental properties on the market – if you walked just around the four of five agents in Berwick, you could find 50 or 60 ‍properties. Therefore you could go out there and have a look around, and landlords were trying to make sure that they had a reasonable price to make sure they got someone in that property so it was not costing them too much. It has now spun around so much so that you could go to four or five different agents in Berwick and you would be lucky to find two or three properties. What happens then in a growth area is so many people are putting in bids for those properties or going down and having a look at those properties that the prices increase over time. These are families that are already struggling. These are families that have already had the pressure put on them because their energy prices have gone up 25 per cent, because their insurance costs have gone up for them, because the cost of running their own cars has increased – there is just nothing in life at the moment that is not increasing. You go shopping at Coles or Woolworths and the prices have all gone up. School costs have gone up.

What we are saying to this government now with this legislation is: we support the idea. We support the concept. We support how important it is to get something in place so we can ensure those 64,000 that are waiting to go through VCAT, that backlog, is cleared as quickly as possible, because it will save money. But what we are saying, and the reason we have moved the reasoned amendment, is we just do not trust this government to put in place the regulations to ensure that the cost is one of the things that is taken into consideration and the consultation process for this as well. At the end of the day this is about renters having the rights and the access they deserve, and they thoroughly deserve a safe environment where they can live, but most importantly at the moment it must be affordable. At the moment what we are seeing with the changes this government is making is every time they make a change, the costs go up. We want to make sure that it is on the record now that if they make these changes and costs go up, the impact will be detrimental to all of these families, and it will be on this government to hold the responsibility for what they have done to local renters in my community.

Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (18:22): I am pleased to rise to contribute to the Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024. I want to start by just acknowledging the housing issue that our communities face at the moment right across Victoria, but in particular in my electorate of Geelong. We know there are many issues, which is why this government has done so much work in recent years – the Big Housing Build, the recent housing statement. These are all things that we know as a government are really important and will help address some of these issues that our communities are facing.

Safe, affordable and secure housing is what we need, and part of that is the private rental market. We know there are cost-of-living challenges out there that many in the private rental market are facing, and unfortunately we hear stories from renters in my electorate in particular who have been subject to unreasonable rent increases, repairs not being done and of course bonds not being returned. For some this has resulted in having to endure the stress of trying to find a cheaper rental, or in the worst scenario, leading to homelessness or risk of homelessness or living in substandard conditions and being out of pocket when their bond is not returned. And this is not an attack on landlords or real estate agents, it is the reality in my electorate. Very rarely do I hear from a landlord or estate agent. The people I am hearing from are renters who are experiencing real difficulty in terms of trying to deal with their landlord or their estate agent, whether it be rent increases or whether it be repairs that have not been done, to the point where it is causing ill health to their family and to their children, or not being able to get the things done that they need doing in the property that they are renting. Landlords do these things at the expense of their tenants, and I think that this bill goes a long way to addressing some of the challenges that our community are facing.

Enduring that stress involved in having a dispute with your landlord or your real estate agent is really unnecessary. If landlords and estate agents are genuine about providing housing, then they need to do it properly and they need to do it within the confines of the laws that we currently have. We know that there are many disputes that go to VCAT unnecessarily that could have been resolved very quickly. You know, I am sure VCAT are sick and tired of hearing about landlords who have not done the repairs that they are required to under the law but have taken it all the way through to VCAT at some expense and often more so to the renters because they have had to endure that stress of being challenged by the landlord and not having their hot-water service fixed or their heating or their cooling or whatever it might be. So this bill goes a long way to addressing that.

I do understand that landlords do need to increase rents from time to time but, as I said, not at the expense of the tenants. But I also know that those that are doing that due to high demand are taking advantage and demanding unreasonable rents and failing to provide a good standard of housing for those tenants. Rental disputes are stressful for all parties involved and particularly for tenants, who feel they have no power and end up in VCAT for straightforward disputes. My experience in talking to tenants has been that sometimes they are just so overwhelmed with the difficulties they are having in getting work done or the excessive rents being charged that they just give up and start looking for other options, or they are forced out or feel they are being forced out by the landlord and end up looking at whatever alternative accommodation they can get, which is not always appropriate.

Many of the renters that I have spoken to who have had challenges with real estate agents and landlords, as I said, often will give up. But they are also concerned about the fact that their children do not bring other kids home, because of the state of the condition of the house. There are all sorts of issues. So the establishment of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria creates a clear pathway to resolve matters faster, fairer and cheaper. In 2023 the former Andrews Labor government released a landmark package to boost housing supply and affordability in Victoria, representing the largest scale planning and housing reform in Victoria in generations. This is for all the reasons that I have already mentioned but also in terms of population growth. Really strong population growth in areas like the Geelong region is having an enormous impact on housing supply. Victoria’s Housing Statement: The Decade Ahead 2024–2034 was developed to account for the fact that Victoria is the fastest growing state in Australia, with our population set to hit 10.3 million by 2051.

This bill is the first step in our establishment of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria. These amendments will ensure that funds can be used to facilitate a fairer rental market for all renters, industry professionals and rental providers through a contemporary, responsive, faster and cheaper dispute resolution service. To further support government’s work on implementation of housing statement reforms and our wider work to improve the ways in which we collaborate with stakeholders and the wider Victorian community, the proposed amendments will also discontinue the Estate Agents Council and the Public Records Advisory Council. The Victorian Property Fund is a trust fund established under the Estate Agents Act 1980 and administered by Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV). The fund receives income from several sources, including licence fees paid by estate agents and conveyancers, any fines and penalties payable under the Estate Agents Act 1980 and the Conveyancers Act 2006, interest on estate agents and conveyancers’ trust accounts and investment income.

Currently CAV administers grants and compensation claims from the Victorian Property Fund, including compensation for individuals and corporations when an estate agent or a conveyancer or their representative has misused or misappropriated trust money or property. The Residential Tenancies Fund receives income from payment of penalties and fees under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997; transfers of surplus funds from the investment income earned by the Rental Tenancies Bond Authority; or any gifts, donations or bequests of money made to the fund. The RTF is currently used to fund the administration of the acts and costs related to residential tenancy matters at VCAT. Under the legislation, the funds were specifically established to fund the administration of the legislation, and these changes will modernise ways in which the government use these funds to allow us to continue to administer the legislation through alternative dispute resolution services.

Of course we know that demands and costs go up as we see more Victorians renting than ever before, with increasing costs and demands and a need for increased certainty about their leases, living standards and finances. Victoria has the strongest rental protections in the country, but we know that there is always more to do. In acknowledgement of this, the housing statement commits to a number of reforms to protect the rights of Victorian renters and build on our previous package of over 130 ‍reforms to make renting fairer. These reforms included restricting rent increases between successive fixed-term rental agreements, cracking down on an emerging trend which has seen some rental providers evict tenants at the end of their fixed-term lease, incentivising rental providers and renters to negotiate their rent increases and banning all types of rental bidding and closing loopholes which have seen agents enable rental bidding. This is the work that we have done over the last couple of years to ensure that renters are protected as much as possible. This bill is really important to ensure that, and I commend the bill and to the house.

Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (18:32): I rise today to speak on the Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024. I want to start by thanking my colleague the member for Ovens Valley on his reasoned amendment, which raises some incredibly valid concerns about the lack of detail in this bill so far. The bill itself proposes making amendments to the Estate Agents Act 1980 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. These amendments will allow the use of the Victorian Property Fund and the Residential Tenancies Fund to establish and fund the ongoing costs of a new dispute resolution and advocacy service, known as Rental Disputes Resolution Victoria, or RDRV. The bill also proposes abolishing the Estate Agents Council and the Public Records Advisory Council and makes various statute law revisions and amendments in updating language. The reasoned amendment calls for confirmation that the establishment of the RDRV will not impact landlords more than they already have been, as well as information about the costs associated, the time it will take to set up and more details about how the RDRV will operate.

As things stand, VCAT has been home to a wide range of tenancy-related disputes involving all aspects of the rental process, including unpaid rent, maintenance issues and rent increases. This time last year VCAT recorded a backlog of 64,000 cases from the residential tenancy list alone. On top of this, issues with VCAT processes are having an enormous impact on all parties involved. Speaking with real estate agents from Living Here Benalla, a small local agent, it becomes clear that the current method of VCAT procedure is untenable. What used to be a straightforward system now is met with delays, a lack of consistency in decision-making and exorbitant amounts of paperwork. The directors of Living Here, Nicole Irwin and Mandy Reed, say that they are no longer sure how to proceed with this broken system. Since changes were made to the Residential Tenancies Act last year that introduced a five-strike policy for repeated unpaid rent, among other considerations, there has been a lack of consistency when it comes to how these cases are handled. Only after a fifth strike do these cases even reach VCAT, where they are met with the broken system. Each case now requires hundreds of annotated documents, which they say VCAT do not even read before the hearings commence. It requires multiple days and staff hours just to put documents together.

Since these changes were implemented the agents say they are yet to have a positive hearing in VCAT. One of their cases has now had five separate hearings. Another involves a 14-month delay for a bond claim for unpaid rent, while another case has reached 136 days without rental payments as VCAT proceedings continue to drag on. In one case a tenant was $8000 behind on their rent, and a hearing was requested on 12 December. This was then delayed until January, before an urgent hearing was then requested after a lack of progress on 21 February. On 29 February VCAT informed the agents that they had received their application but failed to set a date for the hearing. On 16 March the agents followed up yet again but are yet to receive a response. During this period the owner has not received a cent of rent. These are not massive corporations owning several properties, these are regional home owners that rely on this income. The owner in this particular case is a primary caregiver for their sick husband and now has taken a second job to cover the costs lost from the lack of rental payments.

Many owners are also being frozen out of their homes. A stat dec is required just to move a family into a home someone owns, with a 60-day notice period that can still be rejected in a VCAT hearing. At the same time a tenant will have their case heard within three days. These agents understand the need to ensure tenants have their rights upheld, absolutely – and we do not want people out on the streets – but they say there is no balance. They are dealing with tenants who wilfully choose not to pay yet are still able to live in these homes for months on end. It is clear that this system has not been working, and a viable alternative is desperately needed. Unfortunately this bill does not provide enough detail as to whether the RDRV will be a better option, though.

The RDRV is designed to relieve residential tenancies list cases from VCAT as well as to provide advocacy for tenants and renters. The body itself will not be established through this bill; however, these clauses will enable the government to use funding from the Victorian Property Fund and Residential Tenancies Fund to help its establishment. This funding in theory will contribute to the start-up and ongoing costs of a body that has no details about how it will operate, what jurisdiction and authority it will have, what its annual revenues and expenses will be and the resources it will provide to the community. At the moment the government has suggested that the rollout of RDRV would be at least 18 to 24 months away, if not longer, as consultation has not yet begun. Given the government’s track record on delivering projects on time, I will not be holding my breath.

Additionally, we do not know how the body will complement VCAT or whether it will have sufficient enforcement and punishment powers to actually implement change to this system and reduce the VCAT backlog. Also of concern to me is the lack of information provided about the impact this will have on estate agents, landlords, strata management and property managers. There is a serious concern that the new system will be unfairly weighted towards the tenants and renters without taking into consideration the full picture on the opposing side, much like what we have already seen with VCAT. Given the government’s tendency to be highly negative when it comes to landlords, property owners and home owners, it is unclear how this balance will be achieved.

We have already seen the impact this government’s land tax changes are having in my community, so it reasons to be cautious about how this new body is established and operated. Victorians are already paying the highest property taxes in Australia, with an average of $2120 in property taxes per person across this year, compared to about $1600 in New South Wales and about $1300 in Queensland. Labor have increased the tax base by lowering the tax-free threshold from $300,000 to $50,000 while also slapping on an additional flat tax of up to $970 Victorian households. Individuals, families and businesses are rightly concerned that this tax will lead to increased pressure on households, increased costs to running a business and increased rents. My office has dealt with several concerned residents. Many of these cases, much like those being heard in VCAT, are stories of small regional property owners not being given a fair go.

Lindsay contacted me last week with his story. In 2012 Lindsay, his wife, his sister and her now deceased husband purchased a two-bedroom unit for his mother, who is now 92 years old. Over the past two years they have needed to increase their mother’s rent to cover increases in interest rates, council rates, insurance and other expenses. The change to land tax has presented them with an annual liability of $975. Lindsay says this is an expense they will struggle to meet. They do not own any other property aside from their family home, and it is very important to their mother that she maintain her independence as long as possible. $18.75 per week may not appear significant to most of the people here in the chambers, but for these pensioners it is a significant amount. Lindsay says it appears that the government have not considered the significant impact this change will have on people in their situation and the impact on low-income renters who will most likely be facing rent increases from their landlords.

Lindsay and his family are not the only ones feeling this impact. Mark from Benalla has seen significant rises with his assessment notices for businesses he owns. Benalla and many other towns within my electorate are in desperate need of business investment, yet we continue to put barriers up. Mark said:

… we have made the difficult decision to close our business as a motor trader and automotive service centre which I have been operating for 46 years. This was a business my father started 66 years ago.

As a small business we find the … state and federal government red tape and increasing fees and potential penalties … preventative in making a reasonable profit for the effort and investment.

The latest land tax … increase was the final straw.

…

Because of my feelings towards our State government at present, we may even retire interstate.

Eighty-year-old Alan McGillivray from Knowsley has seen his land tax bill jump from $16,000 to $82,000. He is now being asked to pay $300 a day to run a business on his own land. He says this is unsustainable and impossible to budget for as the changes keep happening. Another mother and her son came in after they had both been given the same land tax bill for the same property, even though the son does not own any of it. She too says she cannot budget for it as it changes without any warning.

On top of situations like this, I have had several constituents reach out to my office concerned with errors on their land tax bill. The most frequent reason is due to mistakes in recognising that a property is someone’s primary place of residence, like 81-year-old Faye Bliss in Benalla, who received a land tax bill. As things stand, something needs to change. Whether it be through this legislation being debated today remains to be seen, but I remain hopeful that positive change will be implemented soon.

Kat THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (18:42): I rise in support of this bill chiefly because it represents another critical step in the Allan Labor government’s work to ensure every Victorian has access to fair and secure housing.

Last year our government did release a landmark package of reforms to boost housing supply and affordability in our state to plan ahead for the inevitable growth Victoria will experience – growth that will see our population reach over 10 million by 2051. Planning for that kind of growth cannot be haphazard. It needs to be thoughtful, balanced and deliberate, and that is why we are doing the work now to ensure that as we grow, we are building livability, sustainability, accessibility and, importantly, equity into the very fabric and structure and interconnectivity of our suburbs.

The inner north, which I represent, will be one of the areas which will undoubtedly see densification in years to come. Close to public transport, great schools, thriving precincts and beautiful waterways, Northcote is sought after as a place to live, and that is why at every opportunity in this Parliament and in my role as the member for Northcote I speak about how critical it is that we deliver both the homes that we need but also the amenities and services we need and how that equity is central to all of these efforts.

Almost 40 per cent of households in my electorate are renters, and while home ownership remains an important aspiration for many, tenancy is the immediate reality for thousands, whether by circumstance or by choice. For that reason our Labor government has made it a priority to progress an enormous amount of reforms in the time that we have had to give renters the support, security and safety that they need and deserve, because whether rented or owned, we want every house to feel like a home. As a result Victoria currently does have the strongest rental protections in the country, and building on this, our housing statement outlines protections that will go even further.

Rent increases will no longer be allowed between successive fixed-term contracts, meaning a landlord cannot evict a tenant and then list the property at a higher price. We are extending the notice to vacate and rental increase notice periods to 90 days, because renters should not be left to stress and scramble when facing these difficult circumstances. We are introducing a portable rental bond scheme. We are closing the loopholes on rental bidding and insisting on mandatory training and licensing for real estate agents, property managers, conveyancers and owners corporation managers. We are making rental applications easier and protecting renters’ personal information, and we are delivering a $2 million rental distress support package so legal, financial and advocacy services are there for renters when they need them most.

But the reform that is the subject of this bill, which is a very welcome reform in Northcote, is the establishment of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria. This marks a pivotal shift in the way tenancy disputes are looked at and resolved in our state, because goodness knows it is needed. Right now around 5 per cent of Victorian households are facing serious rental stress, meaning they are at risk of being evicted because they cannot afford to pay their rent, and countless more are dealing with homes that simply do not meet the minimum standards required under our legislation. Or there are others still who are at loggerheads with their landlords for a whole raft of reasons. Indeed over the years I have had contact from numerous residents living in the inner north about their living conditions and the frustration and disempowerment they feel in a system that, for the longest time, has not given renters the dignity and security that they deserve. One resident wrote to me about mould growing all throughout their home and severe structural damage that was making the bathroom floor begin to collapse inwards. Others have described homes that are becoming like a sauna on hot days or dropping to Arctic temperatures in winter months. In some circumstances I have heard of households relying on portable fans and plug-in heaters and air conditioners, which as you can appreciate leads to skyrocketing bills. Still others have been slugged with pretty shocking rental increases, with agents and landlords refusing to even communicate let alone negotiate.

Our homes should be a sanctuary in which to rest and recalibrate, a place to enjoy and take pride in, yet for too many they are a source of constant anxiety and trepidation. Establishing a dedicated body, Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria, will assist both renters and landlords by providing that alternative to VCAT for disputes over things like rent, damages, repairs and bonds. And I think it is important to recognise that when these disputes arise, they are often not in isolation. Lives are complex and rental disputes could be compounding a whole lot of other pressures in a person’s life. No system can prevent things going wrong all the time or prevent disputes arising, but the system must be robust enough and efficient enough to allow recourse when things do go awry. A quick resolution to a dispute as opposed to months upon months of waiting for a VCAT hearing can make a huge difference, not just to the material circumstances under which so many renters find themselves, but to their mental health and wellbeing too. VCAT should be a last resort for these sorts of things, and that is exactly what it will be under the new model that this bill takes forward.

As I said before, the correspondence I have received from my community underscores the urgent need for stronger enforcement of housing rights and fairer play in the property market. Renters have shared with me their sense of vulnerability, of precariousness, of apprehension for their futures and the stability and security of their families. Beyond this they have also shared with me their hopes and aspirations for a housing system in which the inalienable right of a secure home is honoured to its fullest. While home ownership will not be the path or the choice of every Victorian, it did give me heart to stand with the Minister for Consumer Affairs last weekend in Northcote alongside a dedicated taskforce from Consumer Affairs Victoria, a special taskforce proactively patrolling real estate auctions in my electorate and in the northern suburbs broadly to tackle underquoting. Underquoting is more than just an unfair practice, it is unlawful, and it undermines trust and integrity in our property market, so CAV have been monitoring auctions and have issued more than $1.1 million in fines to estate agents breaching the rules. For buyers it means navigating the market with more confidence and not wasting so much time, and for agents it is about a level playing field so that the ones that are doing the right thing are on the same field as the ones that maybe are not.

The path to addressing housing pressures in Victoria cannot just be through words – it must be through action and real reform, and that is exactly what we have been doing as a Labor government. Sadly, it is not a trajectory that we share with many of those opposite, as the Greens and Liberals more often than not cosy up to oppose reform on housing policy. In terms of the Liberal Party, we cannot expect much else, but the real sinister element comes from their unlikely bedfellows in the Greens. Time and again we see the spectacle overshadowing the substance, because we know that they will get up in a debate like this to posture and to gaslight about how they alone are the champions of housing, and meanwhile they will actively block housing development. It is such a ruse. Across the inner north of Melbourne, in councils like Yarra, Darebin and Merri-bek, hundreds of homes have been blocked or delayed at the hands of Greens councillors, and in debate after debate we get these Greens MPs getting up and disingenuously claiming support for housing security in these bizarre performative spectacles utterly disassociated from the reality of their obstructive and destructive influence on real-life, tangible housing projects in our communities.

This includes delaying 99 homes in Preston that thankfully will soon be opened but could have been opened much earlier if the Minister for Planning had not needed to call the development in and take it off Darebin council’s hands. When it comes to housing, the Greens are so clouded by their virtue signalling that they cannot even see their own hypocrisy – a hypocrisy that could not care less about the people needing homes and would block homes being built because they have ruthlessly calculated that they can get more political mileage out of that. In Northcote, as in the rest of Victoria, the need for housing options is acute and the cost of living is putting real pressure on households. Despite the obstructions and the fearmongering and the hypocrisy, the Allan Labor government will get on with building the homes that Victorians need, and not just that, we will pass bills like this to embed equity into our housing system.

I would like to thank both the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Consumer Affairs for their work and their willingness to engage on the pressures in my community. There are still more steps on the road to reform, including better enforcement of minimum rental standards and progressing the review that we have underway into minimum energy efficiency standards for rentals, but as the MP for Northcote, I will always fight for fair and secure housing.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (18:52): I rise to speak on Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024. I do so with concerns about the bill. Whilst it is probably a really important bill to try and achieve the outcomes, when we have got a VCAT backlog of 64,000 disputes that cannot get rental situations righted, this bill unfortunately lacks a lot of detail. This detail has been outlined by my colleague, the member for Ovens Valley, but basically the government are going to get rid of the Estate Agents Council without giving any detail of how that will be replaced and how the government will be able to have advice from the industry that knows the answers to problems rather than the government who thinks they know it all and do not need to have transparency and consultation.

It also claims that they will set up a dispute resolution body. They claim in the second-reading speech that this will result in ‘faster, cheaper and fairer’ dispute resolution. However, in the government’s bill briefing we could get no details on this. In fact the response we got from the government’s representatives was that they were unable to tell us how it was going to be delivered. They simply could not give us any detail. It was ridiculous. Therefore I support the reasoned amendment put forward by the member for Ovens Valley, which does a number of things, but it says:

… this house refuses to read this bill a second time until …

(1) proof that tenants and rental providers will not be disadvantaged by the bill –

is provided, because there is no evidence of that, along with –

(2) more information about how the Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria (RDRV) will work …

and a breakdown of costings and how it will be funded. It is all the important information that is not able to be given to our community to understand whether there are going to be a number of unintended consequences, which always happens when the government works out the details later and rushes through bills that have no detail.

This bill came about as a result of the Victorian government housing statement in late 2023, which the Leader of the House said this afternoon aims to secure affordable housing for all Victorians. Given the track record of this current government, having made over 147 amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, what we have actually got is the most disrupted market you could possibly see. We have no rents available in my part of the world, pretty much. There are no affordable rents, rents have escalated in price and landlords are selling. It is just an absolute shemozzle, and the market has got no equilibrium whatsoever. There is just no stock available.

So I sought feedback, as I do, on the bill from those who I feel have a lot of knowledge in this area, and I got some feedback from a real estate agent by the name of Dominic Bushell from Luke Williams Real Estate. He said in short that any adjustments by the state government in the rental space increase prices. I had a lot of other similar comments from other agents that I spoke to about the rental situation and what these changes will result in, but one of the really interesting ones – and I am going to read it out – was from Brian Hancock, who has been in the industry for 43 years. He said:

The state Labour Government stuffed the Residential Act over 2 years ago with … some 147 amendments to the Tenancy act

…

And now clearly obvious Landlords have had enough, now exiting the market over the past 18 months and choosing to invest in other states

This has put extreme pressure on the rental availability shortage in the market hence coupling to the dramatic rent rises we are seeing any further changes will only create a larger void in the rental market I cannot remember for the past 43 years a situation like we are experiencing. Today when you quantify the landlord exits and predicted further tenant rent rises, cost of maintenance and construction cost for new housing stock the incentives and % rental returns are just not …

there. I thought that was a very sage assessment, really, but when I look at the consequences of what has happened with the legislation changes, he is quite right. The equilibrium is completely smashed, and we are in a really troubled place with our availability – finding roofs for people to put over their heads.

That is coupled with the increase in land tax. I got a land tax notice from a person who brought it to my attention last week. Their land tax bill for a property that they rent out has gone from $1600 per annum to $5900 per annum. That is an increase of 269 per cent. What that equates to in practical terms is an increase per week of over $100. Now he has a choice: he can sell the property, and then it goes out of the rental market because it is not their primary place of residence, or he can increase the rent by over $100 per week. These are investments. This is a mum-and-dad couple. They are not wealthy. They are just investing the money they have for their retirement in property, but I am pretty confident that they will not stay in that environment. It would be smarter, as the agent said, to go interstate.

If you buy a house and land package in Victoria, you will find that almost 50 per cent of the cost of that land and the building of that home is taxes that go straight to the Labor government – taxes like stamp duty and the cost of permits and fees for studies that need to be completed. That is a lot of money when you are a young couple trying to get into the marketplace. I recently had a young man contact me because he has bought some land and he is trying to build the house, but it is hard to get builders, it is hard to get permits and it takes time. He has received a land tax bill for that. So here we are encouraging young people and then taking away at the same time the ability for them to continue to save to be able to build a house. The irony is just extraordinary.

Then we come to the fact that all these houses, whether they are owned or social housing or rental properties, are all part of the supply chain of houses available. I recently had an update from the Community Housing Industry Association, who told me the reason we are in this situation, on top of the reasons I have explained so far, is because the Labor state government have not been investing in social housing for the last 10 years. They say, ‘We’re only five months into our housing plan,’ which they announced, as I said, in 2023. The reality is they have been here for a decade in government in this state and they have had an obligation. They have absolutely not taken the responsibility responsibly and they have not done their due diligence and put the stock in place – so much so we have only had an increase of 1300 homes on top of the stock that we already had when they began this Big Build, which they claim to be putting $5.3 billion into and have spent $4 billion of.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am required under sessional orders to interrupt business now. The member may continue her speech when the matter is next before the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.