Thursday, 30 October 2025

 Gabrielle WILLIAMS (Dandenong – Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for Public and Active Transport) (10:13): Under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated.

 Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (10:15): I appreciate the opportunity to have a look at that amendment. I am delighted to rise and speak on the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, which brings together a broad range of reforms, from fuel price reporting to rental bond transfers and professional development requirements for the real estate sector. It also includes some other requirements for rental providers, and I will go into that in due course. Can I say there are some very sensible measures within this bill, particularly those designed to help renters and to lift professional standards. There are also a couple of aspects that deserve closer scrutiny, and that is particularly the so-called fair fuel plan, which I have some concerns about. It sounds great, but only time will tell whether it will save motorists the $330 that has been suggested by the government. Although it was the ACCC who first said that, there are also concerns around that from the Commonwealth Treasury.

I can put on record from the outset that we will not be opposing this bill, and I will begin by touching on a few of the main provisions, which set out the legislative framework, before I get into the main part of the bill. Clause 1 – the bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 to introduce a transfer of bond scheme; strengthen evidence requirements for bond repayment claims, which is a good thing; and broaden the prohibition on certain application and rent payment fees. It will also enhance gas and electrical safety checks, another good thing, and expand record-keeping requirements for rental minimum standards.

It will also amend the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 to confirm fuel retailers and mandate the reporting of their fuel prices on a daily basis. It makes amendments to the Estate Agents Act 1980, Owners Corporations Act 2006 and Conveyancers Act 2006 to establish mandatory CPD – continuing professional development – for relevant professionals and provide regulation-making powers for CPD providers, in this case, the BLA, the Business Licensing Authority.

The bill includes minor amendments to support reforms. Clause 2 talks about the commencement coming into operation the day after royal assent, with the remaining provisions commencing on 13 October 2026. So we are nearly 12 months out from that. Part 2 amends the Residential Tenancies Act, with division 1 amendments in relation to the transfer of the bond scheme. Division 1 introduces a transfer of bond scheme under Victoria’s housing statement, enabling renters to transfer a single bond between residential rental agreements to reduce that financial burden of paying two separate bonds, or what is known as the double bond, which I will go into in a little while. Clause 4 amends the existing definition of a renter. Clause 5 inserts new division 3A into part 10 of the act, setting out the transfer of bond scheme, and subdivision 1 defines the functions and powers of the secretary and the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority.

In terms of the main provisions that relate to the fair fuel component, there are a couple of those. Part 3 amends the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 to establish a fuel price reporting scheme for fuel retailers, and as I say, I will go into that shortly. This scheme allows that retailers may sell below the maximum price at any time, but they have to put their price in by 4 in the afternoon and that will then come online at 6 the next morning. Can I also mention I have spoken to the minister this morning already, and between houses we can have a discussion about whether 6 am is the appropriate time to start the 24-hour period. I have got concerns from the fuel companies and certainly tradies that say that 6 am is not the right time to start this 24-hour period; it should be 4 am. It actually links in with a lot of shift changes. It links in with a lot of things, and 4 am may be a more suitable time to start this 24-hour period than 6 am. But as I said, I will discuss that with the minister between houses.

The government has presented this plan, in terms of the fair fuel plan, as a way to try and stabilise fuel prices and save Victorians money. We know what happens with fuel prices around weekends and public holidays. On the surface it sounds like a great idea, because everybody wants cheap fuel, there is no doubt about that. Nobody likes to be done when they have just driven past fuel at a certain price and then they come back an hour later and find that the price has gone through the roof because we are getting closer to a long weekend. But when you scratch the surface of this scheme and look a little deeper, there are some questions about whether this plan will achieve what the government wants to achieve with this fair fuel plan. The government want to be seen to be supporting motorists, and that is fine, but will it really do what they want it to do or is it just driving more people to the Service Victoria app and some data collection? Time will tell, in the next 12 months –

Lauren Kathage: Really?

Tim McCURDY: Well, it will. Time will tell, in the next 12 months, whether Victorians save money out of this process, because other states have tried and clearly it has not worked. In fact the Commonwealth Treasury said states need to be very careful going down this path because it has a greater chance of distorting the market than supporting the market. But again, as happens in Victoria, they want to reinvent the wheel and do it their own way instead of learning from other states. We know from experience in places like Western Australia that when governments interfere in the fuel markets volatility may go down but the average fuel price often goes up. This is what happened in Western Australia and, as I mentioned, the Commonwealth Treasury has warned against this kind of intervention, saying it can distort competition and lead to unintended consequences. We will watch this space to see what happens over the next 12 months.

Under this bill every fuel retailer in Victoria will be required to report what their maximum daily price for the next 24 hours will be. That happens at 4 o’clock in the afternoon for a start time of 6 am. We may have a discussion about whether that changes, but for the sake of this bill it is 6 am for the next 24 hours. In that time a retailer can reduce the price. They have to report that they have reduced the price, but they cannot increase it. If you drive past a servo at 8 o’clock in the morning on your way to work, you know that at 5:30 in the afternoon on your way home or at whatever time that night you are still going to get the fuel at that price.

But again, saving $330 a year, or what they claim the savings will be, is like trying to buy shares at the bottom of the stock market – every time there is a dip you get to buy the share at the lowest price. It just does not happen that way. As I say, it helps people in their daily grind to try and work out where they are going to buy fuel, but they are not necessarily going to get the fuel at the cheapest price, because it could very well go down the next day.

I have heard some fuel retailers and those in the market say that 30 per cent of Victorian motorists buy their fuel from the same servo week in, week out. It does not alter. A further 60 per cent of Victorian motorists buy from either one, two or three servos in their general area. It is not as though they are going to be driving miles out of their way to buy fuel at a cheaper price elsewhere. Evidence suggests that they are just going to rotate around their local ones, the majority of people anyway.

Larger corporations and the large fuel chains will have no trouble meeting these reporting requirements. It is pretty straightforward, and they have got the staff, they have got the systems in place and they have got the resources to manage it. But I am concerned for small, family-run fuel outlets across regional Victoria and how they will manage this extra administration. It does not sound like much, but they are already running on thin margins and long hours, and this will be another layer of red tape and compliance. And it will cost them money. Nobody has put a figure on it yet, but I understand people are saying by the time there is labour input and different things that have to happen, it will be somewhere between $3000 and $5000 that it could cost each retailer. Again, in the major corporates they will have somebody doing that overarching work for many different fuel stations, but the family operator has got to continue to be on board right from the word go.

As I say, some of these small business operators are already battling higher energy costs, rising freight prices and tighter margins. They do not need another administrative burden handed down to them from Spring Street. I will give you an example of a service station in a small town in my patch, like Katamatite. The truck comes in, fills up their bowsers, the fuel is at call it $1.60. They are going to put $1.80 on it, make a 20-cent margin or whatever margin they make off it, and that is it. They will set that same margin, and that is all they want until that tank is empty. It could be two weeks, it could be a month when that tank gets emptied. So there is an administration burden for them that they really do not want to get too far involved with, because the price is not going to change for them.

The other concern is the chance of distorting the market when there are apps in place already – I know of MotorMouth and Petrol Spy. There are apps available now for people who are diligent and want to seek a better price for fuel when they fill up every week or whenever they fill up. Again, we are now delving into the private enterprise that is already in existence, and I just struggle with why we need to go into that level, because I have spoken with local retailers and they support the transparency but they question the value of the measure. Many of them are already relying on private fuel company comparison apps that are faster and easier and better designed than the government system. So time will tell how this pans out in the coming 12 months.

The plan is tied to the Service Victoria app, as I mentioned, and it is an app that has certainly struggled to prove its value. This will be something else that people can use this app for, but let us see how much it is used for. Beyond a few things like fishing licences and a few other things, the app is rarely used, and this might be an opportunity for people to do that.

The government claims that this plan could save motorists up to $330 a year, as I mentioned. But again, it is hard to believe it is going to be the case that people will get to buy at the bottom of the fuel cycle every time they fill up, because that is simply not how it works. Another major flaw is that the fuel pricing is locked in for 24 hours. Other states have real time. So if you do want to change your price the next day, you can do it and you have a timeframe that you can do it in, and people can change their fuel price. This is where the concerns come in. I am worried that some retail outlets will actually factor in a margin, knowing they can always drop the price the next day. They cannot increase it, so if they are at all concerned they may put a higher price in, and if they think they want $1.75 they might put $1.80 in, knowing they can drop it at 8 o’clock the next morning but they cannot increase it. I fear that sometimes this will get built into the price. That is what I said about the Western Australian side of things – that the volatility might change, but certainly the price that you pay overall in the 12 months may actually go up rather than down.

While I support the goal of giving consumers clear information, I do question whether this model will deliver genuine value, especially when there are already those alternatives in the marketplace out there. As I say, retailers can drop the price. If a retailer runs out of fuel, they must report that to consumer affairs, because you cannot advertise cheap fuel knowing you are going to run out by 10 o’clock tomorrow morning, but people still come and then they may purchase an alternative fuel. If they are coming to buy 91, they might buy 95 or 98 because they have run out of 91. Again, if the retailer runs out of fuel, they have got to report that. It is not much, but it is still just more and more administration when we are already a very highly regulated state as we are. Time will tell if motorists really save money or whether it is just a great stunt.

I want to move to portable rental bonds and those provisions. This initiative will give genuine financial support and really will make a difference for renters who are under pressure and even renters who are not under pressure. Just to clarify the point, when you are renting a property you have got money tied up in a bond. It is somewhere between $2000 and $2500 these days for a month’s rent in advance in a bond.

Then if you decide you want to move out of that premises and go to another one, you have to find another $2500 as the bond for the next property. What this scheme does is allow your bond to be portable, and then you can use what your existing bond is and move it to your new property.

For that to happen, the government is underwriting, basically, the bond that you currently have in the property you are in, because you do not get that bond back until obviously it has been cleared – once you have left the premises – that there is no maintenance, there is no painting that needs to be done or there is not any impingement of that bond, to make sure that you can still get that bond or whatever portion of it back. That has not been calculated or modelled – from my discussions with the department last week, and I do appreciate the briefing – and we are unclear about what that will cost, the overall cost. I do not think anybody really knows, but I am sure there must have been some modelling to say, ‘If X amount of renters have money taken out of their bond, how much will that cost in interest?’ The government has got to carry that until the renter then pays that back to the government over an eight-week period. Again, it is a very fair bill in that respect, as the renter has eight weeks to then pay the government back. For example, if it was a $2500 bond and $1000 came out for painting and maintenance that had to be done to the property once you left, you would then get eight weeks to pay that back. As I say, the government is going to underwrite that $1000, or be guarantor for that $1,000, while you pay it back. I have no vision about how many renters this would be over a period of 12 months and what sort of money that might be going forward.

It is a fair and sensible reform. It certainly eases financial strain for renters. Again, the most important part is it is not putting unreasonable pressure or burden on the rental providers. We have seen time and time again where changes get made in the rental system. Supporting renters is great, as long as it does not come at the expense of the rental provider, because we are running out of rental providers in Victoria. They are looking elsewhere. It is important that we do not always do things that support the renter but that come at the expense of the rental provider, because that is shifting the pendulum too far, and I think we are going to find we will continue to run out of rental providers if we are not careful. In this situation, I commend the government, because this particular part of it does not cost the rental provider any more while also helping renters, which is a significant step forward. I have mentioned the modelling and that we do not know what that cost will be. Hopefully, a good government, at the end of each 12-month period, would actually put on record what that actually does cost Victorians. I think taxpayers have a right to know what that will cost each year going forward, and obviously there has got to be an estimate in the budget to say, ‘We expect it is going to cost X amount of money next year or going forward.’

The bill also includes provisions to tighten the bond claim process. That is another good step forward. Landlords and property managers now need to provide evidence. They cannot just come along and say to the renter that was in their property ‘I am going to make an ambit claim that we need all the rooms painted’ or ‘The dog scratched the carpet and has done something to it.’ They need proof, and under this bill, they will need to have proof, whether it is a quote or whether it is a bill or whatever it might be. We know, particularly when VCAT was the only opportunity to go and discuss any disputes – now with the RDRV that will speed things up, I grant that – under the old system, it could be 12 months or it could be 18 months before you actually got your bond back. I think having to provide evidence is a terrific move forward because it will stop those ambit claims, and with disputes now being able to go through Rental Dispute resolution Victoria, that will speed things up as well. Again, I think it is a significant step forward.

This government usually supports the renter. As I have said, as long as it does not come at the expense of the rental provider. When this claim is made on a bond, they have got eight weeks to pay the government back. It is important that the government reviews that cost so we have transparency on what it costs in the coming years.

Another change, although much smaller than the two I have just spoken about, is in rental safety and compliance. When I say smaller, that is in terms of change and assistance to renters or people seeking cheaper fuel. This mandates that gas and electricity safety checks will occur every two years in rental properties. No-one can argue with safety. No-one can argue that this is not a good thing. Rental providers might say it is another impost on them, another cost. But it is an investment, it is not a cost. Anything to do with safety with electrical and gas is all about safety for the renter. Many, many rental providers already do this, but for those who do not, this legislation will make sure that they do. I think two years is a timely number to make sure that they do that. As I say, some rental providers will complain that it is another cost, but safety should always come first.

One of the final elements of the bill is the introduction of mandatory continuing professional development, CPD, to the real estate sector. This will apply to estate agents, owners corporations managers and conveyancers. It allows the Business Licensing Authority, BLA, to approve and publish CPD activities to ensure consistency and accountability across the industry. That is a welcome reform. It is about lifting professional standards, ensuring staff remain up to date and giving consumers more confidence in the people that they are dealing with. The Real Estate Institute of Victoria supports this direction, and rightly so. Ongoing training is a cornerstone of any profession, and we certainly support the opportunity for more CPD. As long as the system remains practical and not overly bureaucratic or expensive, it will strengthen the industry.

Finally, the bill will stamp out or attempt to stamp out unfair practices in the rental market. It will prohibit rental providers or their agents from charging prospective tenants for background checks. We understand that some applicants are being upsold a background check – ‘For $30 you can get a background check to make your application more competitive.’ This is not on, and it has to be stamped out. This brings in legislation to stop this practice.

In consultation and stakeholder feedback, neither the Real Estate Institute of Victoria nor the many fuel retailers I have spoken to about this bill have raised major objections to the overall direction of the reforms. They do share some concerns, certainly around the growing amount of red tape that continues to weigh down small businesses across Victoria. That is particularly in this fair fuel plan. Again I say, on paper, on face value, it sounds good, but let us wait and see over the next four to six months as it rolls out whether it achieves what it sets out to do. We hear time and time again that well-intentioned policies that look great on paper can create headaches in real practice. That is what we will deal with as we move forward if there are any concerns.

In summary, the bill contains a mixture of solid commonsense reforms. For some projects, the fair fuel stuff, we will wait and see how that rolls out. In the rental changes, the CPD provisions are a positive step forward. I think that is a terrific part of this bill to ensure renters get better opportunities and opportunities to move from where they are. Quite often, particularly in a cost-of-living crisis but at any time really, what stops you moving out of a property that you are not happy being in – because of the neighbour, because of the smell, because of the neighbourhood or whatever – is finding that extra $2000 or $2500 as a bond to move to another property to make your family feel safer or whatever that change might be. This removes that concern, and I think that is a significant step forward to help renters.

Just going back to the fair fuel plan, I am unconvinced about that. I think I have convinced you that I am unconvinced about that. We will see how that goes. Victorians are certainly crying out for relief from soaring costs, and we need practical solutions to make sure we get those savings.

As I stated at the outset, we are not opposing the bill. We do urge the government to ensure transparency; to reduce red tape where possible to deliver outcomes that actually make life easier for Victorians, particularly for those living and working in regional areas; and to make the costs that are set up transparent – the actual costs year in, year out in the first, second and third years – to see exactly what they are so the Victorian public can understand how much this will be costing Victorians. Let us be the judge of that once we know what the costs are and decide whether they are viable. As I said, with the fair fuel plan we will see whether that is viable or not, and I think the portable rental bond will be a good thing going forward, but I would like to know what the cost of that modelling is. All Victorians need reform. We do not want red tape and empty promises – we just want reform. Anything that can save a dollar, whether it is in a rental circumstance or a fuel circumstance, is a positive step forward. I commend the bill to the house.

 Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (10:41): It is a pleasure to rise this morning to make a contribution in favour of the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I note that the minister at the table, the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, circulated an amendment at the beginning of this debate, and I will just touch on that amendment quickly before I get to the substantive part of the bill.

The Consumer Legislation Bill 2025 includes further amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 to address power imbalances between renters and rental providers and to enable renters to better challenge unfair bond claims. Part 2, division 2, of the bill will amend the Residential Tenancies Act to strengthen requirements around claims made against a bond to ensure that they are genuine and supported by evidence. Clause 11 of the bill will insert new subsection (1A) into section 419A of the Residential Tenancies Act to provide that a residential rental provider or their agent must not make an application to the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority for repayment of an amount of bond to the residential rental provider unless the application is accompanied by evidence to support the bond claim and that evidence is not in conflict with the original condition report of the renter’s premises.

The introduction print of the bill inadvertently omitted a single word from paragraph (b) in proposed new subsection 419A(1A). The house amendment will insert the word ‘not’ into new subsection 419A(1A)(b) so that it will read:

the bond claim evidence does not conflict with a statement in a condition report.

Really it is just an amendment to clean up and rectify one small error in the bill, which we love because that means that we do not have to come back and do statute law amendments in 10 years time.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on this legislation this morning, because what this legislation is all about is making things fairer for Victorians, helping them with those tricky cost-of-living pressures that we know so many working Victorians – all Victorians – have been under over the last few years in particular. Earlier this year we launched the Servo Saver feature on the Service Victoria app, and today we are going to build on that with mandatory price reporting and caps on the maximum price of fuel in any given 24-hour period. The member for Melton has touched on this several times in this term. We know there have been some – not all – unscrupulous businesses and service station owners that have been really taking the mickey out of Victorians for some time on this.

The Servo Saver app is obviously about trying to help with those cost-of-living pressures but also just making sure that we are keeping those owners accountable. To that point, it is all about competition. You can get on the Service Victoria app, you can look around your home, or wherever you may be, and you can shop for the lowest price. I acknowledge that there have been apps that have had this function in the past. But obviously it was not mandatory, so the owner of the fuel station would have to sign up to that and would have to provide the pricing information on their own accord. Some had been, but a lot had not. What this piece of legislation and the mandatory reporting requirements will do is make sure that every service station everywhere is required to do that. Diligent people and families that are going to fuel up can jump onto that app and find the lowest price.

I will just go to some of the comments from the member for Ovens Valley, who spoke about how some fuel stations may just build the margin in and then lower the price in coming days. I think a part of this is that competition aspect. Particularly if you are a service station in a metropolitan area with a lot of other service stations around, it is a real competition piece as well. If you sit there and you build that margin in and you have the highest price in a 10-kilometre radius where there might be 10 service stations, you know that you are probably pretty unlikely to receive the lion’s share of business in that area. I do acknowledge the challenges in regional communities around that competition piece. You may have a smaller town in a regional area that only has one service station in a 30, 40-kilometre sort of radius. I understand that competition piece is more challenging in regional areas, but I think that in more densely populated areas that competition piece is a really, really important part of this. I think that the concept of the app is fantastic, but also the mandatory reporting for all of those service stations is fantastic. I hope the competition that it creates has the capacity to drive down prices.

As part of this piece of legislation we have the rental reforms with the portable bond scheme as well. It is a fantastic piece of legislation, as I said, to help with cost-of-living pressures, and this is the second piece of that. As somebody who up until quite recently was a renter, I can understand how this can be tricky. We know that in Victoria we have been leading the nation on rental reforms now for some time. Since we have come to government the amount of reforms that we have made in the rental space, just to make renting fairer and easier for Victorians, has been significant. But there are still challenges, and one of those challenges has been, for some time, that bond component of renting. You may very well be able to afford the $400 a week or whatever it may be for a private rental, but at times it can be really difficult to come up with the bond. Four weeks rent up-front can be incredibly difficult. You know, $1600, $2000 is pretty standard in most areas for a rental bond, and that can be difficult. So you have worked your butt off or you have borrowed or you have done whatever you have had to do to be able to come up with that initial bond – and then, for whatever reason, you need to move rental properties.

You may need to move areas. You may just need to move because the property is going up for sale, or whatever it may be. Some of the complexity and some of the delay in getting that bond back from the real estate agent or the landlord can mean that there is that lag there. You have had to move houses, you have got the bond sitting there, you know that it is going to be okay to get it back because you have treated the rental property fantastically and you have been a model tenant, but there is just that lag of three or four weeks there where you cannot get access to that bond to be able to put it up for the next property. I know that that has been really difficult. There have been people in my community that have come and spoken to me about this piece of legislation and have used that exact example, and I have had troubles with that myself. Having this portable bond scheme so you have got that initial investment that you have been able to come up with for your initial rental I think is a landmark change and will markedly improve the lives of renters here in Victoria.

I said at the outset that this piece of legislation was about making things fairer for all Victorians, helping with those tricky cost-of-living pressures that we know people have been dealing with over the last few months. I commend it to the house.

 Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (10:51): The Allan Labor government’s latest bill, the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, is yet another example of the Allan Labor government overpromising and underdelivering. This so-called fair fuel plan promises to reduce spikes during holidays, but similar schemes elsewhere have shown mixed results at best and hardly the savings that Victorians are being promised. Meanwhile, their rental bond reform, while well intentioned, is a bandaid solution to a housing crisis that Labor helped create. Renters are still struggling under skyrocketing costs, and this measure does little to address the root cause of that problem. Let us not forget the real estate industry – Labor’s answer is more bureaucracy, handing power to the Business Licensing Authority to enforce professional development. Whilst it might sound good, I am sure it will be fraught with more layers of red tape and cost. It is a classic Labor move – more regulation, more red tape, no real relief for everyday Victorians and it is certainly not fair, as was mentioned by the last contributor to this debate. It is certainly not fair for Victorians.

This bill is a distraction from the government’s failure to tackle the cost-of-living crisis head-on and its failure to fix the rental availability crisis and the housing crisis. The Allan Labor government continues to appear to campaign – championing for renters and working families. But once again the reality does not match the rhetoric. Their latest legislation, while dressed up as relief for renters, adds more complexity and cost to an already strained rental market. By underwriting rental bonds the government is inserting itself into private agreements, creating a bureaucratic maze that risks pushing more costs onto rental providers, which ultimately affects renters themselves. It hurts renters. It does not help this crisis that has been created. Portable rental bonds may ease a short-term cash flow problem, but they do nothing to address the deeper crisis of affordability.

This also shifts the financial risk to taxpayers. The government will underwrite bonds during property transitions, but it has not explained how much this exposure will cost. While dispute resolution reform aims to speed up VCAT’s notoriously slow process, a patch on a patch of a broken system that Labor has failed to fix for years is not an effective process. Requiring receipts and quotes to prevent bogus claims is basic accountability, not bold reform. The fair fuel plan, touted as money saving for motorists, is built on fantasy economics, assuming consumers can always buy fuel at the lowest price point. The Service Victoria app central to this scheme is a digital dud. Believe me, I was trying to do something on it in the last couple of weeks and I was tearing my hair out. It is rarely used, poorly maintained and lacking transparency around its costs. Forcing every fuel retailer to participate and report prices daily is a heavy-handed move that reeks of control, not consumer empowerment.

Worse, the government ignored Treasury’s advice, warning that meddling with the fuel price will distort competition and actually risks raising the average price – the exact opposite to what the intention is, but it is good spin from the government.

Small family-run outlets, like the many in the region of South-West Coast that I work with, will bear the brunt of daily reporting requirements buried under red tape, while the government refuses to disclose the true cost of this scheme. I have spoken to some of these operators, who tell me that this will minimise competition and actually push prices up. We will see: the reality will be available to see soon. They will also have to employ another full-time person to administer the scheme, especially during the set-up stage, they are telling me, and for the ongoing compliance component.

A key independent retailer in south-west Victoria said the government’s consultation was a joke – which is very consistently what I hear. They said the government was just telling stakeholders what they were doing. That is not consultation, but it is very typical of the Allan Labor government. They asked the government for the data, research and modelling to show how this new program would benefit the consumer to be able to get this supposed $320 to $330 annually in savings. But guess what, the government would not provide it. One wonders whether this modelling was ever done, but plucking a figure out is an easy thing to do. Putting some evidence behind it is not what the government is prepared to do. They went on to say that the government just wanted consistency of pricing, minimising elasticity and higher prices – great headlines. But the cost of this program has not been disclosed. Let us be honest, if it is not about helping Victorians, it is about harvesting data and propping up a failing app. Victorians really do deserve better than this political dance. They deserve real solutions in a cost-of-living crisis where the pricing of things really does hurt families, and these things could help but will do the exact opposite.

I have been recently assisting a constituent in my electorate who is struggling with housing. The bill mandating gas and electrical safety checks every two years, whilst a good thing, is particularly ironic because Emma, who is in my electorate, is living in a public housing nightmare. She moved into her home in 2014, just after it had been cleaned for black mould. Since then the mould has returned time and again, most recently in the last few weeks, so each time the department sends a cleaner. But Emma does not want a superficial wipe-down, she wants the cause found and addressed. Emma has a 16-month-old baby who has been hospitalised recently with respiratory issues, and a doctor has confirmed in writing that the mould exposure could be contributing to the child’s condition. To protect her baby, Emma is now living in a cramped unit with her mother and children because her public housing home is unsafe. She applied for a transfer to a safer, more suitable home two years ago. It was approved, but she is still waiting. Why does the government get away with these double standards. If this legislation truly reflects the government’s concern for the safety of its citizens, then let us have that concern shown to Emma – not next month, not next year, but today. This is not just bureaucracy, it is neglect. It is a failure of duty. While Emma’s story is heartbreaking, it is not unique, but it is unacceptable.

The government is responsible for public housing that it provides, but there are so many people living in unsafe conditions in their public housing homes. I spend literally hours making representations to the government, and the government just leaves them in these unsafe and unprotected government-provided homes. Women – who the government claims to understand – some of them, in some cases, are terrified in their public housing homes of other tenants in public housing as their neighbours. I have provided examples of these very terrifying experiences – death threats, extremely worrying events – even evidenced on CCTV, which I have provided, yet the minister does nothing. In fact Minister Shing gave me a long spiel about how everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home, but there are no consequences. These people are terrified, and they are being threatened. They are absolutely expecting better, as I think we should. How is that fair, as the government are actually talking about it today. How is that fair.

In short, this bill is a mixed bag of half-measures, unrealistic assumptions and hidden liabilities. It is more about optics than outcomes. It is another attempt by Labor to look busy while dodging the real challenges facing Victorians – like the housing crisis and the fact that people cannot get a rental property – and actually addressing the problem in the pipeline of housing by addressing the root cause, not tinkering around the edges. This certainly might make great headlines, but it makes no difference to those people who are terrified and living in their homes in a situation that is completely unacceptable and that the government has the responsibility to fix.

 Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (11:00): I rise to speak on this fantastic bill, and in doing so I want to get straight to the point and help out the member for South-West Coast with some modelling information about the fair fuel plan. Firstly, can I just say at the outset, on her concern that there is no modelling and that it is all secret, that I will just let her know that there is public, published monitoring by the ACCC on this. I am happy to tell you about G-O-O-G-L-E.com.au, which can assist you further with that. Can I give you some localised modelling as well?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair.

Lauren KATHAGE: I am happy to provide the member with some localised monitoring, because just last week I brought up Servo Saver on my phone and I looked at the areas of Mernda and Doreen, and at the same time I brought up the Petrol Spy page. Can I tell you that the Servo Saver showed us that just down the road there was petrol available 50 cents a litre cheaper. It was $2.63 at all the servos except for one, where it was $2.13 – a 50 cents a litre saving. Now, what does that mean? All right, here we are, say, in Mernda. A lot of people travel a long way for work, and a lot of people drive larger vehicles because they often have a trade. If you took advantage, if you checked the app, you could, for example, with a Ford Ranger, save about $40 in one hit filling up your tank. As I said, there are long distances for people living in the outer suburbs, so if you fill up your tank every week and a half, if you check the prices first, you could get a saving of around $1200 a year. The $300 is an average. I am giving you a local example, member, of ways that people can save with that. I note that the member is not interested in hearing about the actual real information that is available, but hopefully one day she will get a chance to read Hansard, and if she wants to correct the record, she is very welcome to.

This change means that families can save money, and it also helps them plan into their day how they can make sure they are getting the best deal for petrol. The changes that are coming in with a published maximum price for the next day from 4 pm mean, for example, if you are going to make a decision about if you should fill up tonight on the way to netball practice or if you should fill up tomorrow morning on the way to work, you can have a look and see where the cheaper one is going to be – on the way to netball or on the way to work the next day – and you can make your decisions accordingly. That means that people have got power back, and they have got the ability to put some control around making sure they are not paying the highest price in the area but paying the lowest price.

I am a little bit envious, for example, of my brother-in-law, Wayne. Because he is a fencer, he drives his big ute all over Melbourne. He proudly was involved, member for Point Cook, with the construction of the elephant enclosure at the zoo. He used to drive each day from the inner north all the way out to Werribee, so he had lots of opportunities to find the cheapest petrol. That is something I encourage all tradies to do.

In the outer suburbs, this family understands people who do not live in town and who live in the outer suburbs, and this is supporting them to save money. We have got the fair fuel plan here, which gives people power and choice, and we have also got free public transport starting for under-18s next year. If you think of the average family in our area, these are huge savings for them from next year. If you add in the public transport for the under-18s, if you have got two teenagers at home catching the bus or the train each day and you have got mum and dad driving to town for work, you are looking at thousands of dollars of savings from next year under this government, because we are about real support and real change for families in the outer suburbs. We listen and we understand what the experience is like, and we are there to support them.

I have noticed, for example, a real difference between our Servo Saver app and those that are available commercially. Just the other day I compared two apps around the Donnybrook–Kalkallo–Mickleham area, and I saw that the commercially available petrol app, because it does not have the same requirement for 30-minute or real-time reporting, can have outdated prices. I saw that across the bridge, over the highway and into Mickleham the commercial provider was showing that petrol was available 40 cents a litre cheaper. If you looked at the real-time information on our app, you could see that that was wrong. The price there was the same as the one around the corner for people in Donnybrook. If people had looked at the commercial app, they would have had to go all the way down Donnybrook Road, across the highway, down into Mickleham. They would have got there on the way to work and said, ‘Oh, you’re kidding – the price isn’t any different here than it was at home’. Whereas if you look at the Servo Saver app, the government-provided information, you will see the real prices.

Can I also correct the record. The member for South-West Coast and the member for Ovens Valley both have a very obvious misunderstanding, because they kept talking about servos having to provide daily reporting to the government on petrol prices, and that is incorrect. I make it very clear to those opposite – and I hope that their subsequent speakers will not repeat this error – that service stations report fuel price changes. It is not a requirement to report the price every single day. I hope that eases the worries of those opposite, and I am sure they will not raise it in their subsequent contributions, but the member for Point Cook stands ready to correct them again if they do seek to do so.

I hope that shows that this is a well-thought-out plan by the government that is being implemented in multiple stages. This is just one of the ways that this government is seeking to support people across all parts of their lives and to understand reality for families. Another one is this absolutely groundbreaking change of the portable bond scheme. This is going to have such an amazing impact for renters in my community. I would like to take a moment to focus on people living in Wallara Waters and the Newbridge estate in Wallan. This is an area with a high number of renters. I have spoken with the Council of Single Mothers and their Children about the supports and the needs of people renting in that area, as well as the Compassion North Foodbank who service a lot of single-parent households in that area. People are doing it tough, and for people who are counting every dollar, who are saving up over multiple weeks to buy their children shoes for school, the prospect of having to find $2500 if they have to change their rental property – or if there if there are troubles at home, if home is no longer safe with the partner they are with and they are seeking to find safer accommodation – how terrible that something as simple as a bond could stand in the way of them seeking that safety.

This portable bond scheme really helps those who are looking for support from this government. This government is there, ready and willing to support people through all facets of their life. Those opposite are concerned with the cost of administration of this scheme, and work is underway regarding the charges involved and ensuring that the scheme is of good value. But you know what is good value? Supporting the household budget of every Victorian family. That is what this government is about. We are about making sure that in all aspects of a family’s life they receive support from the government if they need it. If they want it, we are there, ready to provide support. There are two massive changes in this one bill, and this bill is just one of a whole raft of reforms that this government has introduced to support families in cost-of-living pressure. I commend this bill to the house.

 Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:10): It is my chance to make a contribution on the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, which is around a number of things, particularly around the issue of the bond transfer scheme. I suppose a lot of people this week in Parliament have talked about their lived experiences. I have got a stepdaughter that is really challenged in trying to find a flat here in Melbourne, and the issues she has had bring home to you this whole issue around the housing crisis in Victoria and the challenges they face as renters – all the rules that are there and how difficult it is to get into the market. Resolving this issue about having to find another bond when you have not got the bond back from the other one and all those things is an important way of actually getting people into properties.

One of the things I have spoken about in the house before is that we need to reignite the great Australian dream of actually owning your own property. It is so important, I think, because too many people now see it almost as beyond them. We need to make sure that people can actually aspire to that. The first step is obviously when people first move out from home. A lot of parents would like their kids to move out a bit sooner these days, but they are staying home because that is the most economical place to live into the future. I see some laughs from the other side of the house; people are probably having that lived experience as well. But it is important that the next generation of home owners have the opportunity and can see that they can get their foot on the ladder by buying a unit, then trading up to a house, and the progression goes on. There is very good research about the fact that when you get to retirement age, if you do not own your own home you find retirement a lot more difficult because you are stuck paying rent on not necessarily as much income as you have had in the past. So it is important that we actually make sure that people can afford to get into a unit at least and make things easier for them to get into that and then have opportunities in the future so they can actually buy their own home.

On the issues of gas and electricity safety checks, again there is an issue there, and we need to make sure it is appropriate. A number of years ago we saw the issue in Shepparton where a family was tragically killed because their gas appliance was not up to scratch and they were actually asphyxiated by a faulty gas heater in that particular house. It is just so important that we make sure, particularly in units where there is not a lot of natural air getting through, that the appliances are applicable and that people are safe into the future.

One thing I would like to spend a little bit of time on is the issue around the fair fuel plan. I suppose from our side of the house there are some concerns that people are not necessarily going to save the amount of money that the government say they are going to save into the future. We had the member for Laverton making some comments about how someone had actually texted her and said, ‘I’m at this fuel station because I saw what you put on your Facebook.’ That is great; it is great that people are taking advantage of that. But I suppose we would have some concerns that people may not save as much money as the government is actually saying they are going to save. I know when I go through Bendigo there is one fuel station there that amazes me with how busy it is, out near Golden Square – the APCO fuel station.

Obviously the market works. Not that I go through Bendigo all that often, because there is such a long distance of speed restrictions, but if I have need to go to Bendigo on the way to Melbourne I go through there, and that fuel station always has a queue at the fuel pumps, so it has obviously got a better price.

Belinda Wilson interjected.

Peter WALSH: They might be very nice people, but most people when they go to buy fuel do not have time to interact with the person behind the counter, because – in this one particularly I imagine – there is a queue there. You are in and out and you want to get going. So the market needs to work. The government is saying this will help the market work better, but there is a concern that people may not get the savings that they say they will have in the future. There are some comments being made by the Commonwealth about this particular idea and whether that may distort the market into the future. But I think anything that we can do to help consumers in a cost-of-living crisis to make sure that they can make their dollar go as far as possible is very, very important.

We all know from our electorates that people are suffering with the cost-of-living crisis. We all have issues with crime in our electorates, but I think the next biggest issue presenting in various ways is the cost-of-living crisis for people. That presents in many ways, but mostly around the cost of energy – the cost of gas and the cost of electricity. But fuel for your car is also a very important part of that cost-of-living issue that they have. Whether we like it or not, we are slaves to our motor vehicles. Most of us do not have the opportunity to have public transport where we live. Those that live in inner Melbourne who have the opportunity with public transport, with trams and with trains, are blessed that they are not necessarily slaves to their motor vehicles. But most of us are because we just have to get places. So if we can save some money on the price of fuel, that would be fantastic. But the caution from the shadow minister’s work is that we are not sure that the government is going to have the savings there for people that they are actually subscribing to with this fuel-saving program. So after that contribution, I thank the house’s indulgence. As I understand it, we are not opposing this legislation. So I will leave it to the next person to make a contribution.

 Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (11:18): I am delighted to follow the contribution from the member for Murray Plains and very pleased that those on the other side are going to support us on this bill. Before I talk directly to the bill I just want to acknowledge the wonderful Minister for Consumer Affairs. I think it speaks to his vision and commitment that we have a bill before the house that is going to make a real difference to Victorian lives – and it is not just on one matter. The minister and his wonderful staff have managed to look at a range of ways that they can help Victorians with the cost-of-living difficulties that we are facing. So I do think that we need to acknowledge the minister for his fabulous work on this.

I am really delighted to stand to speak on the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. It says everything about the values of this government and this minister and all that we believe in. It is a bill that speaks directly to fairness, transparency and dignity for everyday Victorians. The bill tackles, at its heart, the most pressing cost-of-living pressures facing families, and they really are the two big ones, I think: the cost of fuel and of course the cost of renting a home. I would say as a regional member of Parliament that this bill really benefits us in the regions. We do use more petrol, we do have to rely on our car a lot more as we travel greater distances, and I think that this fuel policy will make a real difference to regional Victorian lives.

For renters, this bill is probably one of the most significant reforms in recent years. I am delighted that this government has brought through a whole raft of reforms – really, really good reforms. One of my dearest friends Michael is a renter. He and his partner Greg have two fur babies, and the change to the legislation about being able to have pets was really fundamental to them. They said to me at the time that no-one would deny me renting because I have children so why should they be denied their fur babies. I am very proud of all that this government has done, but I have to say, in terms of really substantive reform, this is the big one.

We have heard lots of stories from other people, and certainly I have my own story. When I had to leave my marriage I was renting as a single mum with two boys. We needed to move, and it really was a struggle to try and find that extra bond. It was a really difficult time for us. Thankfully my mother is ever loving and ever kind, and we were all right. But the other element of this is around keeping an eye on what people do with those bonds. In that instance I was really distressed because I worked very, very hard to clean the house and so forth when I left the place. In my naivety I knew I had done such a good job that I signed in advance the real estate agent’s document and he then claimed $300 for an oven clean off me, which at that stage, as a single mum, was pretty reprehensible. The fact that this bill is going to have oversight of bonds is fantastic, but the real one is the difference in being able to transfer it over and not having to find that extra bond – the double bond, as it were.

This is our 150th reform in the renters space but, as I say, it is probably the most fundamental. The double-bond dilemma is very real. We know that the average bond is somewhere around $2300, and not many people have that to spare – it is really difficult to find. In some ways the best pieces of legislation are those simple ones that make such a difference, and this is one of those. It is a simple, fair and practical solution, but by golly it is going to make a difference to a lot of people’s lives. It will be administered by the Department of Government Services, with the government acting as a guarantor for transferred bonds and any claims made against them. When a renter moves, their existing bond can be transferred directly to the new property provided they meet eligibility criteria and pay any difference if the bond is higher. It is really, really simple but really, really effective.

The scheme has obviously been built with compassion and accountability at its heart. I admit that the minister who constructed this is one of my dearer friends, and I know those are at his very heart; compassion, accountability, transparency and fairness are marks of the minister who has brought this to us. There are also hardship guidelines, and the bill maintains protections for victim-survivors of family violence. To guarantee transparency, the minister will review the scheme within three years of its commencement and table a report. That is so important. I know that there are concerns on the other side about whether the scheme will work and will it save people money. I am confident enough in this bill to say absolutely we are going to have a report in Parliament just to confirm that it has worked as well as I hope. I have no doubt that it will. In my electorate, in the regions, we have a growing number of renters across Ballarat, across Bacchus Marsh. We are seeing the number of renters increase, so I think this will be very well received within my electorate.

But the bill does not stop there. It goes further to make renting fairer and safer. It introduces new requirements for evidence in bond claims, meaning landlords must provide documentary proof like photos, receipts or quotes. I told you the story of basically losing $300 as a single mum for something that really was not fair, but I had no evidence to stand on, and there was the thought of trying to prosecute that argument. This will mean that people will have those protections, so those landlords are going to have to provide that information.

Also we are on to the fair fuel plan, and I know we use this word too much in this house, but this really is a game changer, particularly for regional Victorians. We cannot just sort of flit around as much as city folk to find petrol stations, so it gives us that advance notice and we know where we can go and reliably have that price. The two of them together really are part of a broad vision that this government has, and it is a Victoria where consumers, renters and workers are protected from unfair practices. I think if you look across this government’s agenda over many years, that becomes very, very clear. That sense of equity for working people and for Victorian families sits at the heart of every bill that we put together. With us you know it is not a slogan; it is a standard that we live by. We are not just making up slogans for Instagram, like perhaps some of those on the other side do. We actually come up with real and effective policy that improves the lives of Victorians. This bill is just a stand-out in those terms.

This legislation builds on our long legacy of consumer protection, from product safety and tenancy reform to financial fairness and professional accountability in the property industry. It is a space that there has been a lot of work done in. I am very, very grateful as the mother of two sons, 24 and 21, who are both going to be out there in the rental market, to know that there are some real protections out there for them thanks to this Allan Labor government, but also I know that they will not be coming to me for a double-dip bond. I can tell them that there is legislation in place there for them.

I want to end my contribution by saying that this is a fantastic bill, because it speaks to everything that the Allan Labor government is. We are here backing Victorians; we are not bagging them like those on the other side. We are backing Victorians.

 Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (11:28): I rise to speak in support of the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Thanks to the relentless efforts of renters and the community standing up for the rights of renters and demanding better and the sustained pressure on the government from the Greens and the community, we are finally seeing long-overdue reforms that will make life just a little bit easier for renters in Victoria. For years the Greens have been calling for a fairer deal for renters, for action to address that extreme power imbalance between renters, landlords and real estate agents and for policies that treat housing as a human right, not a speculative asset.

This bill contains some modest but important reforms that respond to the growing movement for renters rights. One of the key reforms in this bill is the introduction of a portable bond scheme. It is a long-awaited change, first promised by the Labor government in the 2023 housing statement. The scheme will finally allow eligible renters to transfer their bond from one property to the next instead of having to pay a new bond up-front while waiting for the old one to be refunded. Any renter knows how hard that double bond period can be. It is an impossible burden for people already struggling with skyrocketing rents and the rising cost of living. A portable bond scheme will mean that renters do not have to fork out thousands of dollars just to move home. They can transfer the old one over to the new one.

This bill also introduces new rules that require landlords and agents to provide actual, real evidence – receipt evidence – before making a claim on a renter’s bond.

That seems like it should be absolutely obvious, because for too long renters have lost all or part of their bond to unfair or exaggerated claims, often for damage that amounts to normal wear and tear or just from a landlord trying it on and relying on a renter’s lack of time and headspace to be able to fight for what is rightfully theirs.

Laura in my electorate had her bond deposit withheld from her for almost two years, waiting for a VCAT hearing after her landlord had made a bond claim saying that she had left items at the property. It was furniture the landlord owned that had been there before she moved in. Under these reforms the landlord would need to bring receipts and show evidence to back up their claims. This requirement adds a layer of transparency and accountability to a system that has long been tilted against renters. It will help stop landlords from using bond claims as just another way to profit off renters, and it will discourage them from making claims that they know will not stand up to scrutiny. The bill also extends gas and electrical safety requirements to all leases, regardless of when they were signed, and mandates gas checks within six months before draughtproofing work is done. These are practical, life-saving measures, and we are really pleased to support them today. This will help prevent carbon monoxide poisoning and other hazards and ensure that renters are not living in unsafe homes while landlords cut corners.

Earlier this year the Commissioner for Residential Tenancies Renting in Victoria: 2024 Snapshot reminded us of just how bad the situation still is. From a ‘mystery shop’ of Victorian rental listings 9 per cent of properties had visible mould, 10 per cent had inadequate window coverings and 15 per cent failed to meet even the basic standards for heating. Half the agents at those inspections could not answer basic questions about safety compliance, energy efficiency or mould history, and 13 could not provide any information at all. That is unacceptable. Every person deserves to live in a home that is safe, habitable and healthy. That is why the fact that this bill strengthens mandatory training for real estate professionals is a welcome move. Having compulsory professional development requirements and enabling the government to prohibit or approve training providers based on quality standards means that professional standards will improve, and we all know they really need to. For too long renters have faced invasive, discriminatory and misleading behaviour from property managers, with very little accountability. Mandatory continuing education is an important step towards fixing that culture and ensuring that renters are treated with the respect that they deserve.

The bill also makes it an offence to charge renters for background checks as part of rental applications – a small but meaningful protection against exploitation. It empowers Consumer Affairs Victoria to publish clear guidelines on the records that landlords and rooming house operators must keep to prove compliance with minimum rental standards. These are welcome reforms. They are practical and they are long overdue – but they do not go far enough. Let us be honest: they are small steps in the face of a much larger crisis. The fundamental problem remains. Rents are rising far, far faster than wages, rental stress is exploding and renters have very little power to assert their rights.

Tenants Victoria’s Setting the Price report from last month shows that 80 per cent of landlords raised their rents in the past two years, with an average rental increase of 17 per cent – 17 per cent. In contrast, CPI increased by just 2.4 per cent in the last year. The Everybody’s Home Priced Out report from March this year found that Victorians earning $40,000 a year are spending up to 82 per cent of their income on rent. Even those on average incomes are spending over half of their income – 52 per cent – on rent. These are impossible numbers. People are being forced to skip meals, delay medical care or move further and further from their communities because their rent has become unaffordable. Like for Travis, who moved from share house to share house, never lasting more than a year as every landlord either wanted them out or hiked up the rent so much at the end of the first 12 months that they could not afford to stay.

He has had 15 homes in 15 years, moving further and further away from his community and from his workplace each time. He has couch surfed and he has lived in his car. The stats show it and the stories show it. This government has to address that looming problem that just continues to persist despite the tinkering around the edges that they are doing. Anglicare’s Rental Affordability Snapshot from April this year shows that not a single rental in Victoria is affordable for someone on JobSeeker or youth allowance – not one. That includes rooms in share houses. That is an indictment of this Labor government’s housing policy and their failure to protect renters.

We are hearing from renters across the state about being hit with increases of hundreds of dollars a week. They are often just asking for basic repairs, and their landlord retaliates with a massive, astronomical rent hike. These rent hikes are being used to intimidate and silence renters, and these unlimited rent rises are being used as de facto evictions. Parliamentary Budget Office modelling earlier this year showed that if rents keep rising at the current rate, it will take the average renter 66 years to save for a home deposit – 66 years.

The glaring omission in this bill is any form of rent control that limits how much rents can go up at once, because right now landlords can raise the rent by any amount they choose to, no matter how extreme, and it is pushing people out of their homes and fuelling homelessness. Until unlimited rent rises are made illegal, renters will continue to live in fear of retaliation if they try to enforce even the most basic protections in this or any other bill. Across the world, from the ACT to Spain, Germany to Singapore, governments have introduced rent controls to stabilise housing markets and keep people in their homes. This is not a radical idea, it is common sense, and three in four Australians support it. The Greens will keep fighting to make unlimited rent increases illegal and will keep calling for a massive investment in public housing to bring down the cost of renting and buying a home so every Victorian has a secure and affordable place to call home.

Everyone deserves a roof over their head. Everyone deserves the safety and dignity and stability that comes with a home they can afford. This bill is a positive step, but until we rein in rent increases, the rental crisis will only deepen. The Greens support the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, and we will continue to fight to make renting fair, safe and secure for everyone.

 Alison MARCHANT (Bellarine) (11:38): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. In my notes to start off I had to thank the minister for all of his work on this legislation coming forward, but I did not have in there to thank the Greens political party for the work that they have done. This side of the house has done the most incredible amount of reforms in the housing space, in the renter space and now also with this legislation supporting Victorians in the cost-of-living challenges we have at the moment with the fuel saving app. There has been an absolutely incredible amount of work that this government has done on this side of the house. I am really proud to be part of the government that is doing the policy work that makes a difference on the ground for Victorians, particularly those in the electorate of the Bellarine.

As regional MPs in this place we do quite a few k’s in regional Victoria, and as we travel around we do not always have service stations as readily available as maybe those in Melbourne might have. We are driving to drop the kids off at school, we might be running a small business, we are going to work and seeing family and friends, and all of that running around adds up when you go to the bowser. We know that it can cost quite a bit to fill up your car, and that is why we are making this fairer by having our fair fuel plan. We have already delivered the first phase of this plan: we have launched the Servo Saver in the Service Victoria app. I have opened it. I have used it. I am a bit of a creature of habit and I usually go to the same service station each time, but I am fairly confident that they are the cheapest in my region as I am going to work or moving around the Bellarine.

The app actually has confirmed this, and the app has shown me where I can make those savings each time I go to the bowser. I had a look at the app this morning, and there was a 20-cent difference across the Bellarine. If you travelled from one side to the other, you could find a difference, and that makes a difference to when you go to fill up – hence it also means you are saving money.

For the first time, fuel retailers in Victoria will now be required by law to report their fuel prices in real time, and it will be an offence if they fail to make those changes within 30 minutes. This is making sure that you have reliable information that is transparent, accurate and live across all the service stations in the state. This is where you can see where you can get the best deal in your area and make choices.

The real savings have been modelled. I have heard about not having modelling and things like that, which is ridiculous. They have found that motorists who shop around and then fill up at the lowest point can save over $300 a year, and that is a lot of money for a family. That is money back in the pockets of families and drivers, and that is what this Servo Saver is designed to do. This is to align also with other states and territories that have similar mandatory fuel price reporting schemes. Victorians are no longer missing out, and we can do this now here in Victoria.

There is another phase to come, though. We will go even further, as we are going to introduce a daily fuel price cap. That is really to bring fairness, transparency and predictability to fuel costs. Under this new legislation, fuel retailers will be required to report their maximum price for the following day, and that price will be published at 4 pm. From 6 am the next day it becomes the maximum cap for the 24-hour period. From that moment that is the most it can be, and it can only go down, so retailers will not be able to hike prices during the day. We have all experienced that – where you can be driving around and it was one price in the morning, and you go past at lunchtime or in the afternoon and it is a different price again, and it can be significantly different. This will allow people to plan ahead. You can check your area wherever you are driving, and you do not get any of those nasty surprises or curse yourself when you drive past and say, ‘I wish I’d filled up earlier in the morning.’

This will be backed up with some penalties, because we want to make sure that this is fair and accountable, and those who fail to comply can face fines as well. The fuel price cap is scheduled to commence next year, marking another big step in our government’s commitment to supporting and backing Victorians and putting people first. It is a sensible reform, it is practical and it is about delivering those savings, as I have explained. We are making sure our policies make a difference on the ground.

The second part of this bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. This is another suite of rental reforms that we have introduced in this place. This is the 150th rental reform, about making things fairer for renters. I certainly have been a renter in the past, and I have had incredible, supportive and responsive landlords, and it has been a great relationship that I have had with my landlords. But not everyone has that same relationship, either as a renter or a landlord. I think when that relationship is good, it goes really well, but if it is not good, then it can also go horribly wrong.

This is a landmark reform also, where we are going to initiate and address the issue of double bonds. For too long – and it has been quite a stressful situation for many – when moving house you needed to pay the new bond before your old one might have been released or returned, and that can obviously build up to quite a significant amount of money. That is something this bill is going to fix. Under the reforms this is going to affect quite a number of Victorians who rent across our state. They are not going to have to find those thousands of dollars. We know that moving is stressful enough – I have done it a few times – and when you are packing boxes and changing schools or you are having to adjust to a new move, this should be one less thing you need to worry about. It is going to ease that financial burden and emotional strain on renters.

I have talked a little bit about the benefit for renters, but this also benefits the rental providers as well, the landlords, because this is a win for them as well. It will mean spending less time managing that bond paperwork and a bit of peace of mind that the bond is guaranteed by the Victorian government under this scheme. It will be administered through the Secretary of the Department of Government Services. With the government acting somewhat as a guarantor for those transfers of bonds and any claims that are made, we can ensure that the scheme runs smoothly for both the landlord and the renter. Renters simply will need to meet the eligibility criteria. They will pay a small administration fee and cover any shortfall if their new bond is higher than the old one.

This is going to look fairly familiar to rental providers. For new rental providers, they will be notified of that bond transfer and lodge a bond lodgement with the authority, as they do now. When there is a claim on the first bond, once it is agreed to by the renter or determined by VCAT, the government can step in to pay it. If a renter then owes money to the state as a result, there are options to have multiple repayment options, ensuring that there are those hardship guidelines in place and that renters are treated fairly and given the time and support that they need.

Once these laws are passed, we will continue to work on finalising the online portable bond scheme, as I have indicated, for next year. This is making sure that there will be transparency and accountability, and the Minister for Consumer Affairs will review the operation of this scheme within three years of its commencement and also table a report in Parliament. It means that we can then, as we do with lots of legislation, review it, track it, see if it is working as intended and make sure it is delivering as we have promised. That is really about making a simpler, fairer and more affordable renting experience for Victorians.

I have talked a little bit today about what this bill will do. It is about standing with renters. It is about fairness. It is about a system that is going to work for everyone. I have talked about the fuel saving scheme as well and the Servo Saver app. This is about making sure it is easier and fairer for drivers and families who are watching their family budget and watching their spend. This is going to make sure they have money coming back into their pockets. The reforms that we do in this place are significant, and the reforms that we do clearly show that we are always on the side of Victorians. I commend the bill to the house.

 Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (11:48): This Parliament has been filled in recent years with lazy, lazy legislation, and I am afraid to say that this just joins the long queue. The government has been forced to do something about bond transfers because the housing crisis we are experiencing at the moment has seen the devastation of the property rental market here in the state of Victoria. Landlords are fleeing. They are not just running and are not just occasionally selling up; the private rental market is evaporating quicker than a pan of water in the middle of the Sahara. It is just a nightmare in Victoria at the moment.

This government has been forced to bring in what can be described as a useful measure, but it has no costings and it has no allowances. We do not know who is ultimately going to be picking up the bill for it. On the current track record and policy direction from this government, we can only assume the next piece of lazy legislation that comes forward will see some new fee levied against property owners to help pick up any shortfalls in the government’s new bond transfer system.

The bond transfer system is indeed a useful mechanism for the thousands of Victorians, particularly vulnerable Victorians and low-income Victorians who are trapped in the rental spiral, who are now at an increasingly rapid rate finding themselves being evicted from private rentals because the landlords and property owners are being forced to sell up here in the state of Victoria because it is such a costly nightmare for them to provide private rental in Victoria – like no other state. We are the least desirable state to rent private property in, with a 40 per cent reduction over the last couple of years in private rentals in Victoria.

That is just a disgrace. That is a message to the community that this government, with its absolute obsession with penalising property owners in Victoria through regulation, taxation, new emergency services and volunteers levies, vacant property taxes, everything – in Victoria now, if your range hood was perfectly legal 20 years ago and is 10 centimetres – this much – a tiny little bit too low, you cannot rent a property in Victoria. If you do not want to completely renovate a kitchen, you have got to kick the poor tenant out – no options – and that property gets lost to the rental market. This government is unable to understand that when they wage war against property owners, they wage war against the most vulnerable in Victoria. They make life increasingly more difficult. At the end of the day the property owner can cash out, go and buy some BHP shares or invest in the big four banks or just go and get a lazy income and put their money to work for the big end of town rather than keeping their money in the system that helps Victorians.

This legislation has been forced upon this government because of the cry – I mean, we get them; I am sure even Labor MPs have had the poor tenants, the people forced into the rental market who just cannot find that extra bond. That bond problem that has caused, that people are increasingly finding they get into a tenancy and they are kicked out after 12 months, they have got to move on – it is not the evil landlords, it is not the evil property owners. It is this out-of-control, lazy government that has got a debt problem that is so massive that they just continually have to pick on the only real option they have for raising revenue, and that is property owners. This is a response to that. Let the Victorian people be under no illusion. This is not a government acting out of the goodness of its heart; this is a lazy government, an incompetent government, that is doing its bit to try and rectify yet another problem it has caused through its mismanagement of the state’s finances here in Victoria. That is what this legislation is about. It is about trying to patch up and put bandaids on a massive problem, a massive own-goal that they have created through their attack on property owners.

The opposition can see why this legislation is being proposed today. We certainly do not oppose it, because what it seeks to do is try and help out the poor people that this government is punishing every day. In every budget since they have been in office they have attacked property owners and tenants. They have attacked them through higher and higher costs and regulations. We can only imagine that when next May rocks around it will be more grief for tenants as more taxes and charges will most likely be levied. What is going to stop them coming up with more taxes and charges against properties? They have attacked cats and dogs at the moment with extra fees and charges, the fire services levy and on and on it goes against property. We can only imagine there will be more and this piece of legislation will be even more required as more property and more tenants get put out to market to try and find an ever-decreasing amount of accommodation in Victoria.

We know this because in every single reporting period since this government started talking about housing the urgent priority housing waiting list in this state has continued to grow. Can you imagine adding 8000 families in just 12 months to the priority waiting list because you are so incompetent at encouraging people to invest in property to provide good, stable, long-term housing? This government has been incapable of doing that. What they have done instead is they have blamed councils, they have blamed local neighbourhoods and local communities. They have blamed everybody for the housing crisis except their own ridiculous, out-of-control taxation policies, and so it goes. That is why this Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill has been put forward.

I will point to the other little side trick in this piece of legislation. We have got the main piece, which is the guarantee of the bond transfer – as we said, the opposition can see why that is needed; it is useful cost-of-living assistance for many Victorians, one that is picking up their own mistakes – and the other one is the fuel app.

This is a curious little bit to tap in. As a country MP, there are probably very few other MPs, particularly on the government side, that have to go to a servo as much as country MPs and our constituents, who regularly frequent a servo. The simple fact is there are already many, many apps that are doing this. My question would be: how much money are we diverting from the state to provide this app for a service that already exists? The service already exists. For those of us fortunate enough to listen to the public broadcaster early in the morning with Sharnelle and Bob, they give petrol updates every morning, as much as the ABC can promote servos. That sits there.

Quite frankly I want my servo app to tell me where I can get the best pies, the freshest dim sims and something other than a Diet Coke – I mean, I love an iced tea. As someone who drives many tens of thousands of kilometres a year on the road, I am going for the freshest pie and the pie bain-marie that has some choice in it. If I am sitting there at the taxpayers expense looking at an app to see whether I am going to drive another 200 kilometres to the next country town to save 1 cent when I have missed out on the best pie at the best servo – with the cleanest toilets I might add – these would be really useful additions to a servo app. But this government is so out of touch with the travelling voter that they think this is the bee’s knees, when it already exists. Give us something we have not got, government. Give us something that the consumer might actually enjoy and want. Make it a little bit innovative. But of course you do not rely on innovation from this government, let me tell you. We have got a government, as the rest of this bill speaks to, that has to bring legislation to the Parliament that is bandaiding its own goals, its own mistakes. It is bandaiding issues that this government has created, problems that it has created of its own volition.

While I commend this bill and its little bit of sprinkling of ‘We’re going to somehow make petrol cheaper,’ which is just a nonsense, it speaks to the fact that you have got a government who seriously thinks it can intervene in the market and make a positive difference for Victorians when it simply cannot. The problem in housing is 100 per cent an own goal by this government – a problem that gets worse by the week under this government. We have now got them trying to dabble in petrol prices. Based on its reputation, I can only imagine this intervention will probably make petrol prices worse for most people, because whenever they get involved they tend to have a habit of doing that. We welcome the bill to the extent that it will help relieve the pressure on so many vulnerable Victorians who have been thrown to the wolves under this government with its lousy, lousy housing policies and its lousy, lousy endless attack on property owners in the state of Victoria.

 Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (11:58): I very much appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak in support of this bill. Well, wasn’t that an extraordinary contribution by the member for Polwarth! One of the things that is wonderful about the Service Victoria app is that you can check out those fuels that are cheaper across Victoria. If you are travelling from Geelong, for example –

Richard Riordan interjected.

Mathew HILAKARI: I will get to the pies in a moment; I will get to that. If you are coming down from Geelong, you could go to – your namesake – Riordan Fuels in Geelong. You could head to them and pick up some diesel, but you could just go that little bit further down the road and get it more than 10 cents a litre cheaper. I do acknowledge that the member for Polwarth is more interested in the pies in the bain-marie and more interested in the chocky milk. This government is more interested in those things that will cause cheaper cost of living for those people in Victoria, and fuel is a very good example of it. While the opposition is considering what is for lunch, we are considering how we can improve the lives of all Victorians.

On the fact-free zone that was the member for Polwarth’s contribution, about the only thing that he said that I agree with is that they do not oppose the bill, but you would not have believed it, because he said that landlords are fleeing the state – that is his claim. But 736,000 bonds are held by the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority this this year, and it is up from last year.

Richard Riordan interjected.

Mathew HILAKARI: He says ‘Massive reduction’, and that is what I mean by a fact-free zone. He is simply wrong and wrong and wrong again. The fact is that if he felt that this was such a terrible piece of legislation, it was a useless piece of legislation, you would think he and his colleagues would have the courage of their convictions and just simply get up and oppose it.

He walks out of the chamber because he is not willing to defend it. He is not willing to defend the position – he is back! I have wound him in. He will not even stand up and just say, ‘I oppose this. I don’t think it’s any good.’ And the reason he does not oppose it is because it is good for –

Richard Riordan: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I just bring to the chamber’s attention the endless goading in the member’s contribution, requesting me to respond to his comments. I just remind the house and the member that I am unable to speak again on this bill. As much as I would like to, I am unable to do that.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Polwarth, that is not a point of order.

Mathew HILAKARI: He had 10 minutes, and he did not say much. What I would like to say is that there is a great deal of concern, and there is more to do around rental reforms in this state and more to do to support people into homes. That is something that this government openly acknowledges, and that is why we have put in 150 reforms that support renters over the term of this government – I should say 149 so far; should this bill pass, it will be 150.

We are having a real effect in the market. I note that the Guardian put forward an article – I think it was earlier this week – and they talked a little bit about first home buyers in Victoria. Over the period since March 2022, when 24.5 per cent were first home buyers in this state, it has risen to 27.84 per cent, which does not sound like a lot, but it is a lot for all those people who are seeking their first home. I bought my first flat – in fact the member for Dandenong has just walked in the room – in the centre of Dandenong, and it was a very modest little apartment. But I went to sleep that night with such pride, knowing that I had my own place. It was a wonderful thing, and I know that many other members will remember that first night in the place that they own. I am so glad that this government is able to provide that to so many other people across this state. The reason I do not say ‘across this country’ is because the first home buyer percentages across the country have flatlined, in opposition to Victoria – Victoria keeps growing.

There is a great deal of concern from those opposite, particularly in terms of being very vocal supporters of landlords, against the rights of renters and against first home buyers, and the member for Ovens Valley demonstrated that earlier on. But I should say that there is a fairly stable rate of investment in Victoria. In March 2022, the same period, 32.75 per cent of the market was made up of investors, and they are at 32.48 per cent today. So it is a very stable set of numbers. The idea that investors are fleeing the state is just completely wrong. It actually goes to a misunderstanding by those opposite of what is going on in Victoria, which is that we are building more houses, and we are building more houses at a substantial rate, in opposition to those other states around the country. In fact there has only been one time over the course of this government that another state has built more homes than Victoria, and that was New South Wales in 2019. In every single other year we have built more homes than any other state in the country – above 50,000 homes every single year. In the last year we were 13,000 homes above New South Wales and 22,000 homes above Queensland. So investors have more opportunity to invest in Victoria but, more importantly, people have an opportunity to have a home in Victoria, and we are supporting those first home buyers in this way.

I would like to align myself with the member for South-West Coast’s words in this chamber a little while ago, because she said it is a classic Labor move. It is a classic Labor move to support first home buyers – that is exactly what we will support. It is a classic Labor move to support those people who are seeking to invest in Victoria. So I agree with those words, but there was not much else that I had in agreement with her. Again I do ask the member for South-West Coast, if she really is oppositional to this bill, to stand up and oppose it – have the courage of her conviction. Your rhetoric in this place should, by rights, then lead to what you do when it comes to a vote. But clearly there has been some whipping going on, and they have not been able to get there.

The Member for Yan Yean talked about a 50-cents-a-litre difference across Doreen and other parts of the electorate that she represents, and I too have looked at the Service Victoria app and seen those substantial savings, of just a little bit under 50 cents – over 40 cents but a little bit under 50 cents – in the areas around Point Cook. So it is a really great thing that we have introduced that first phase, which is already having a significant effect and providing that opportunity for those people who are driving. From the electorate that I represent, it is truly at least an hour each way, each day. That has a real impact in terms of your cost of living and the amount that you spend on petrol each week.

We are a government which look fully at the lives of Victorians. I do want to just mention on the way through that supporting work from home is one of those things that we are doing to support those people in the community that I represent with the cost of living. It is another thing that the opposition actually oppose, work from home, and I am not sure why this is the case, because for members of the community that I represent, it just makes their lives better. It allows them to spend more time with their family and more time in their community building great places like Point Cook. The one thing that I just want to bring out from the survey that we recently did, which I understand is the largest survey that has been done in Victoria by the Victorian government, is that participants said they were more productive working from home, and 39 per cent of participants said that their one-way trip to work takes more than an hour. We know that many of the participants in that survey were from Point Cook. I understand the highest participation was from members of the community in Point Cook. We know just how good work from home is, and members of the community support that.

Now I will go back to the legislation in front of us. We are putting forward the second phase of the fair fuel plan, and I am really pleased that this will lock in prices from 6 am. It will give that certainty. Of course if you own a petrol station, I do encourage you to go below that number, and you are always entitled to go below the number. But we have got it locked in so people can work out whether they are going to get petrol in the morning on the way in or maybe just go a little bit out of their way on the way home to get the best price possible.

We have also had members talk about those important changes to rental reforms in terms of electricity and gas plumbing being checked every two years. To me, that is one of the most important things about this bill, because it means that those places that people are living in that have not been checked for some time will be checked, and they will have a safe home to go to. Minister, I thank you. I thank your team for all the effort in putting together this bill. It is a great set of reforms. I hope the speaker that follows me will reflect on the benefits of this bill – or if they cannot, vote against it.

 John PESUTTO (Hawthorn) (12:08): I rise to speak on today’s bill, noting that the opposition will not be opposing the measures proposed. But like a lot of things that come from this government, the measures are masking inherent and underlying failures, particularly in relation to those who are renting a home. We all want people, in Victoria and everywhere, to be able to access a home that they can afford, to live there and raise a family if they have one and to do so in a way where the rents they have to pay are not making life even harder for them.

But the reality in Victoria is something else. We know from data that has been published that renters are doing it harder and harder as time goes by in Victoria. We see that from the data. Unlike the previous speaker, I think the true facts indicate that rental bond data has been going backwards in Victoria.

Mathew Hilakari: That’s just not true.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Point Cook, you have had your turn.

John PESUTTO: Whereas in comparison, rental bond data has been going up at a rapid rate of knots in New South Wales and Queensland, and that is one of the more definitive indicators of rental availability.

We know that investors have been fleeing Victoria. We know that, in the 18 months to September, at least some 20,000 properties came off the rental market, and that is consistent with the rental bond data that we are seeing. We know from stakeholder groups that their own members are reporting that businesses that invest in property and property development are looking to leave and are leaving Victoria to go to other jurisdictions to invest their capital.

Who suffers at the end of the day? Investors suffer, sure. Businesses suffer, sure. But ultimately renters suffer more than anyone else.

The government claims that it is addressing the problem through its housing plan and that it is going to deliver 800,000 new homes in 10 years. We know that is simply not true. For two years running the government has fallen at least 20,000 properties short of its own target. It gets even worse when you look at the Commonwealth target for Victoria, noting the target of 1.2 million homes by 2029 that the Albanese government has. Victoria is not delivering on that either. Whether it is the Victorian measure of completed homes or the Commonwealth measure of completed homes, we are falling behind. What that means is that the Allan Labor government is failing renters. It is failing other people as well, but it is failing renters because we need more people to invest in property. We need more people to have the confidence in this state that they can acquire property, apply for permits, know that they are not going to be delayed by state government regulations as well as council regulations and deliver the homes that will put Victorians in a place where they have a roof over their heads.

The government says that not enough homes are coming online because councils do not approve permits quickly enough. There might be some truth to that, to be fair, but I do not think it is fair to assume that applies to all councils. In Boroondara, for example, nine out of 10 permits have been approved, and the only reason those properties have not been constructed is that the developers cannot contend with the rising costs of doing business in Victoria. Bear in mind that a delay of one or two years on a major development costs developers millions of dollars – not hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands, but millions of dollars. You will know this, Acting Speaker Farnham. You were accomplished in your previous life as a builder; you know these things. Most permits are not proceeding. When I say ‘most’, in the case of Boroondara and similar type councils, nine out of 10 are not proceeding because of high taxes and charges and delays caused by the Allan Labor government – things that can be fixed but will not be because this government has not brought any legislation forward.

I say this as an important backdrop to today’s bill. A bond transfer scheme will help renters. It will, and that is why we are not opposing it. But it is a measure when you have got circumstances where nothing else is going to come in its place. The things I spoke about in my opening remarks would make life so much easier for renters in Victoria, but if the government – as it clearly is not – is not going to implement the changes that you, Acting Speaker, I and our other colleagues have been contending for, then this is what you end up with, measures like these kinds of interventions.

We will not oppose them. I do have some questions for the government about whether it can share with this Parliament at some point – if not in this Assembly debate, maybe in the other chamber – what costs it forecasts it will bear as a result of this scheme. For example, how will it deal with disputes with tenants who are shifting between properties? Who will bear that cost? What are the holding costs of those debts that are not realised? How will its supposed reforms to dispute resolution work to expedite the outcome of disputes with rental providers and disputes with tenants? A departing tenant may well dispute the government’s position in a particular dispute over, say, property damage or rental arrears. Those things should be shared with this house and the upper house as well.

I just want to speak briefly on the fuel pricing plan in the few minutes I have left. Again, we are not opposing this measure, but it is always interesting when you have market interventions by governments. To be fair, over the years our side of politics has intervened in markets as well. As much as we do not oppose this measure, I do have some concerns about the game theory aspect of these changes. What will fuel retailers do to hedge against movements in fuel prices in their areas? Is it in the interests, for example, of a fuel retailer to notify the regulator of a very high maximum price so that it has room to reduce prices?

Now, a reduction would be welcome, but my point is rather: will this intervention actually induce the very behaviour we want to discourage, which is the notification of high maximum prices for fuels right across the board, so that all you are really doing in the end is running the risk that you are lifting the range of prices amongst a precinct of fuel retailers to a much higher level, because they all want to hedge? For any rational operator – when I say rational, an operator who is operating economically and thinking about the price and revenue impacts and profitability over time – what is their behavioural response to the notification requirement going to be? Well, I am never going to be a fuel retailer, but if I am trying to simulate the rationalisation of how I would respond to that, I would be inclined to think that as a fuel retailer it is in my business’s interests to notify the regulator of a higher price. I can foresee, on the back of that, that the government will have to return to this issue, because there is no indication that it is going to drive down prices. Transparency we have no problem with, and it does not look like the notification requirements are so bureaucratically onerous that they themselves will have price impacts – I doubt it; so that is a good thing – but I do have a concern about whether over the longer haul this runs the risk of actually pushing prices up, because no-one will quite know what their competitor is going to do. Giving yourself maximum flexibility to lower your prices during the day does not necessarily mean that you are going to see, on average, over time, lower prices.

So my point on both of those two measures – which are not the only two things in the bill, but those two sets of reflections bring us back full circle to what I started out with – is: if a government were focusing on its basic responsibilities and obligations, it would actually create the ecosystems we need which give investors, renters, fuel retailers and consumers certainty and as much predictability as a market can provide. Markets are not perfect, but we know from our own life experiences that people will respond. There are behavioural responses that people have to these sorts of things. I lament that the government has not done enough – not nearly enough – to set up either the housing market or the fuel retailing market in a way which maximises consumer and rental benefits. But we will not be opposing this legislation.

 Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (12:18): Well, I cannot tell you – I am so excited to get up and talk about the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I have been thinking about this bill all week, because we sort of had –

Cindy McLeish interjected.

Sarah CONNOLLY: No. I have been so excited and I have had a really good sleep, so I am totally pumped to speak about this. Those opposite struggled, I think it was at question time – it feels like a long week – on Tuesday, when the Minister for Consumer Affairs got up to talk about the fair fuel plan and he got up to talk about the Servo Saver app. I know exactly what he got up to talk about in his ministers statement, but those opposite jumped in to interrupt him because they actually did not know about the Servo Saver announcement that was recently made and about the fair fuel plan that came through as part of that – which I thought was amazing, because I have a story to tell. This actually happened, and I think I need to tell it here in this place. And I am going to look into the camera, because the guy at the service station at about 7:30 in the morning last Thursday –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Through the Chair!

Sarah CONNOLLY: this one is for you. I do not know his name, but for the sake of this story I am going to call him Joe. Now, it is 7:30 in the morning and I am dressed in a fluoro yellow jacket on my way to a press conference with the Premier at the Joan Kirner hospital. As happens to me on a regular basis, I do not fill up till the car is on empty and I probably have 200 metres left of fuel. So I turned up to a service station because it was the closest to my house, sweating heavily, thinking I would not make it. And at $1.59 I thought, ‘Jeez, I haven’t seen petrol this cheap for ages.’

Literally, I am thinking this as I have plugged in and I am filling up the car. I thought, ‘Oh, I probably need to do some social media around this Servo Saver announcement we’ve done that’s on the Service Victoria app.’ And as I was thinking this, I could see this bloke staring at me, and I instantly thought, ‘Well, it must be the yellow high-vis jacket that looks totally crazy at 7:30 in the morning, or he’s recognised something. He’s seen something on social media.’ And I thought, ‘Here we go.’ I am just waiting for it. Anyway, I finish filling up, I go to pay and Joe finishes filling up and he goes, ‘Oh my God, are you Sarah?’ And I said yes. And he said, ‘Are you Sarah Connolly?’ And I said yes, I am. And he goes to me, ‘Oh my God; I literally was at home this morning and I saw you on my Facebook page and I saw’ – get ready for this – ‘your announcement about the Servo Saver.’ I am literally in the service station at 7:30 in the morning going, ‘That was a bad post. That was a bad graphic, and you saw that?’ And he goes to me, ‘I have come here to this service station to fill up my car because it is the cheapest in the area,’ and I am standing there going, ‘Oh my God,’ and he says to me, ‘Thank you so much for putting up that announcement on your Facebook page, and thank you so much and your government for all the work that it does. This has saved me money this morning.’

Isn’t that a great story? I really hope the Premier and the minister are listening to this. This is a great story. This actually happened. I am calling this guy Joe, because there will be plenty of Joes out there that get onto the Servo Saver, their car empty, and they will save some money that day. $1.59 was really cheap to fill up on. That was a great start to the day, and I headed off to join the Premier at the Joan Kirner hospital in Sunshine. So when the member for Polwarth stands here and says, ‘No-one uses this; this is rubbish,’ that is completely untrue. This is a real story. So I will look in the camera and say to Joe: ‘You are welcome; you are very much welcome, and you should use that Servo Saver every time you go to fill up and you should tell your family and tell your friends because it will save you money.’

That is what we are talking about here in this bill. That is real life. That is real-life politics. That is about doing what is right and what is fair and tackling what we know is a huge contribution to the cost of living for regular folks like Joe. So I am particularly proud about that. God, that puts me in a good mood even thinking about it. That is all I want to say on this bill in relation to the fair fuel plan. It works. Victorians use it and they love it, and I would encourage those opposite that think it is nonsense to get on there and have a play around. Have a look. It works.

I do want to talk about the rental reforms, because I know those opposite struggle with the rental reforms that we have put through this house. We have done reforms for renters. We have done them for landlords. It is about protections. It is about a fairer, more equitable Victoria for all Victorians even if you are a renter – and I have spoken in this house a lot about spending years here in Melbourne renting. It is really tough, and I do think there was a gross inequality between the landlord and the renter. I think the rental reforms we have put through this place in the time that we have been in government have been really important. They have been productive, and it is totally about fairness and equality. To our renters out there who have benefited from these rental reforms, including the rental reform that is part of this bill: you are welcome, because you deserve to have the roof over your head and have the same protected rights that any one of us has.

The amount of work that has gone into rental reforms over the past couple of years in designing the government’s housing statement – that was back in 2023. I was here in this place when we rolled it out.

There is a huge power of work that has gone into that and a huge amount of consultation with renters, with landlords and everyone in between about what we needed to do to afford better protection, better rights for everyone – every single person involved. One of the big issues we know about is that for a lot of households, including my household – this was a real-life experience for me – you need to pay a new bond. When you have to move house, you have got the bond that is held up in your current property and you need to then put in another bond. That actually ends up being a lot of money. Often the bond for where you currently are has not been returned when you are paying the bond for the house you need to move into. It takes a while, and that creates a very real financial barrier. The average cost of a bond – and our bond was a lot more than this – is about 2360 bucks, we know that. So if you already have that tied up and then you need to pay another $2360, that is a lot of money to be putting down on a new rental before you even get the bond back from your previous one. That is something that we have tried to fix in this house, and this change also goes to making it fairer for folks who are renting and having to undergo this. That is why we have introduced the new portable bond scheme. It is just making things a bit easier and a bit fairer for everyone – not just for renters but everyone involved – when it comes to renters or landlords involved in this type of contractual arrangement. That is what the portable bond scheme is about. It is going to allow the government to act as a guarantor for all transferred bonds as well as any claims made against bonds that end up happening. We know it is not just going to benefit renters but also going to benefit landlords, because they also deserve protection afforded to them. They will also benefit from it.

I think it is really important to remember why this government introduces bills like this. This is not a frivolous, ridiculous bill. There is great stuff in this. This is the kind of stuff that matters to Victorians. This is what they tell us; this is what we hear on the streets. I heard it last Thursday in my fluoro yellow jacket with Joe. This is what he told me: this stuff matters to people. It helps with the cost of living. It makes these cost-of-living arrangements and daily transactions, like rental transactions, fairer and more equitable for everyone involved. I am really proud of this bill. I think it is tremendous work from the minister. He should feel really proud and know that Joe in Melbourne’s west is so happy with his Servo Saver. I commend the bill to the house.

 Ros SPENCE (Kalkallo – Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Carers and Volunteers) (12:28): I move:

That debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.