Thursday, 1 September 2022

Bills

Residential Tenancies, Housing and Social Services Regulation Amendment (Administration and Other Matters) Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:52): This is why I proposed a regional housing summit. This is where councils and other stakeholders would come together to share ideas and make recommendations to each other but also to the government on how to fix this massive problem. I have been promoting this regional housing summit for a long time now. I have raised it in Parliament on three occasions before today, and I raise it again because it is so important. As I said above, this is not just a housing problem, it is a jobs problem, a social problem, a regional development problem. The effects are so much bigger than just a housing problem. We need to invite all regional councils and stakeholders—for instance, the local chamber of commerce, social housing operators, local builders, tourism bodies and others—to meet together to talk about the problems and solutions and to share ideas. Each council area should not have to go this alone. We should be working together to fix this huge issue.

My thanks go out to the 24 local councils in my electorate for working with me on these issues for the past four years, and I hope I have made some improvements and have advocated strongly on your behalf. Dr Tim Harrison, the CEO of Ararat Rural City Council, gets a particular shout-out as a leading voice for regional Victoria—

A member interjected.

Mr GRIMLEY: He is. He is proactively trying to fix the issues that plague these areas. He is a very intelligent, smart man. Once again I stand here saying that the regional housing summit needs to be committed to by both major parties before the election, and I hope we get such a commitment. I commend this bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 12.53 pm until 2.02 pm.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (14:02): I rise to speak in support of the Residential Tenancies, Housing and Social Services Regulation Amendment (Administration and Other Matters) Bill 2022. It is what could be described best as an omnibus bill which touches on a number of matters that are very important to many in this chamber, who I had the pleasure of listening to prior to getting up to speak to it. It is a bill that delivers on our government’s commitment to expand an effective, sustainable and affordable social housing system and establishes Homes Victoria as a strong, sustainable and contemporary housing agency underpinned by a robust and enduring governance structure with the powers to deliver on the Big Housing Build and beyond.

Specifically the bill contains provisions that will change the name of the statutory office from the director of housing to the chief executive officer, Homes Victoria, and change the name of the body corporate from director of housing to Homes Victoria. It provides Homes Victoria with the flexibility it needs to identify the most appropriate models and transaction structures to support the establishment of a range of property investment and development structures found typically in the property investment and financing markets. These could include the establishment of companies, joint ventures, trusts, partnerships and other arrangements as well as the investing, lending and contributing of funds in ways that support the Big Housing Build.

The bill requires the minister’s and the Treasurer’s approval to implement any new transaction structures. These could include entities such as trusts or other commercial arrangements established for a specific project. It also enshrines the Homes Victoria Advisory Board and ensures the board reflects the diversity of the Victorian community, including the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It establishes a framework for the creation and implementation of Victorian affordable housing programs to support low to moderate income Victorian renters to access quality housing options that are within their means. It ensures the integrity of the national rental affordability scheme in Victoria as well as the new Victorian affordable housing programs by ensuring and allowing housing providers to request key income documentation and remove renters who have become ineligible for housing. It supports safe and productive communities in public housing by ensuring that there is an appropriate balancing of the rights of public housing renters and that VCAT takes into account community impact statements, if provided, when considering granting a possession order in cases of serious antisocial behaviour. The bill will also close a potential gap in the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 by providing a pathway to pursue a legal response in cases of antisocial behaviour which occur in areas associated with public housing, including areas of public access.

Many of the previous speakers on the bill have raised the social housing shortfall we have in our state and in fact in our nation. That is why this bill goes a long way in addressing those shortfalls. The $5.3 billion Big Housing Build will deliver over 12 000 social and affordable housing dwellings, including 9300 social housing dwellings and 2900 new affordable and market housing properties. The Big Housing Build is delivering a stable foundation for thousands of Victorians to build their lives. It will increase Victoria’s social housing stock by 10 per cent. Twenty-five per cent of funding, or $1.25 billion, will be allocated to regional Victoria to ensure the benefits of investment in social and affordable housing are spread across our state.

Homes Victoria is the foundation for the social and affordable housing growth, responsible for the renewal and expansion of Victoria’s social and affordable housing assets by ensuring the Big Housing Build is delivered on budget and on time. The bill will provide Homes Victoria with the flexibility to identify the most appropriate models and transaction structures to support this growth program. The bill also enshrines a requirement for a Homes Victoria Advisory Board, which will strengthen governance to support social housing growth and reform. Investment in affordable housing complements the commitment to growing social housing. Affordable housing can provide potential exit points for social housing renters; provide alternatives for Victorians experiencing housing stress who are unable to access appropriate housing in the private market; and avert significant social costs by intervening early, preventing an acute and ongoing housing crisis and a need for long-term government support.

The bill introduces Victorian affordable housing programs which will help address specific gaps, including housing affordability and housing access for low to moderate income households, and deliver economic benefits in communities by increasing housing supply. This also aims to encourage other investors, such as superannuation funds, to build or buy additional affordable rental properties. Finally, the bill will ensure that providers of these houses and rentals can satisfy the relevant eligibility criteria.

Before I continue my contribution about the specifics of the bill and who was consulted on it, I do want to add to some of the earlier remarks made by a number of my colleagues about the importance of social housing and about their lived experience. I was touched especially by the contributions of Ms Watt and Mr Gepp about the importance of public housing, because obviously some members in this chamber do not believe that public housing belongs in suburbs such as Brighton, in my electorate of Southern Metropolitan. In Southern Metropolitan and in Brighton the community has embraced social and public housing projects.

Most recently I was touched by the work of Elsternwick Primary School. In particular there is a new social housing project being built across the road from the school, and the school students at Elsternwick Primary School, which is actually located in the suburb of Brighton, made a sign for a crane to welcome their new neighbours. They are looking forward to welcoming their new classmates, because that is the kind of inclusive community we have in Southern Metropolitan, not one that is classist or elitist, contrary to what some may try to say. It is a community that is accepting of people from all different walks of life. That is why I am really proud, and I talked about it in this chamber recently, about a project in New Street, Brighton. We are investing about $500 million in this tranche of public housing, with about 299 homes directly in Brighton. That is a combination of social housing and some market rental properties as well. It is a beautiful part of Melbourne. I do not need to explain how beautiful it is in Bayside, as we have got a former councillor from Bayside sitting in this chamber before us. He has elaborated in the past about the beauty of the Bayside suburbs, and I think it is a beautiful place for public housing. It is a great place for families and communities to come together. It is an inclusive community, as I have touched upon. Elsternwick Primary School students demonstrated that with the new sign welcoming their neighbours. It is an example of what the community view is on these projects. Obviously this project is a massive win for existing and future residents of our local community and sends a message that public and social housing is welcome everywhere, including in Brighton.

This is yet another example of a government delivering for all Victorians, because as I say, the beneficiaries of social housing, that safety net, are all of us; we all gain from it. That is the reason why in Australia we have a relatively egalitarian society. We have strong social safety nets, whether they be federal schemes such as Centrelink or universal health care access such as Medicare. We have got free public hospitals that our states run, we have access to good education and obviously—I note the Minister for Training and Skills is here as well—we have free TAFE, so people can get skilled up and trained up and get into jobs, because that is what it is about. It is about the dignity of work, and what we are doing is creating pathways where people can get the training needed to get the jobs to build long-term careers where they can earn a decent living for themselves, their families and their loved ones.

I think public housing is a crucial equaliser in ensuring fairness. In a range of social levers, housing is probably the most important, so 12 000 extra homes is fantastic. It is the largest single investment in this kind of housing of any government anywhere in Australia—over $5 billion in one shot, a 10 per cent increase. It is fantastic to see, and I am so proud to be speaking on the bill, which assists that program.

I want to talk about some of the governance structures and who was consulted in the making of this bill. Homes Victoria has obviously undertaken consultation with a number of bodies. They created a housing interdepartmental committee with key external stakeholders. In terms of the government’s model the Victorian government’s Office for Women, the Office for Disability, Fairer Victoria, the Victorian Multicultural Commission and Aboriginal Victoria were consulted in establishing this new board, so you can see a diversity of viewpoints there, and experiences. Consultation on amendments related to transaction structures were undertaken with government agencies, including the Department of Treasury and Finance, Land Use Victoria, the Victorian Government Land Monitor and the Valuer-General Victoria. Homes Victoria will continue to consult as models and transaction structures are developed and implemented. Obviously implementing any new system, structure or process takes time, and it will probably take time to refine, like our laws in this state. There are always times when we review laws; we update laws where appropriate to reflect what is best practice.

The affordable housing legislation framework is important here too. The consultation sessions with key stakeholders included the Victorian Council of Social Service, the Community Housing Industry Association, the residential tenancies commissioner, the Department of Justice and Community Safety, and Haven; Home, Safe and Justice Connect, Tenants Victoria, Victoria Legal Aid, the Victorian Public Tenants Association, National Affordable Housing Providers Ltd, Community Housing Limited, Council to Homeless Persons and the housing registrar. Stakeholder feedback was mainly favourable towards this legislation, particularly on the requirement to consult with renters, advocates, peak bodies and other key stakeholders before operational settings can be published. This will ensure that key renter concerns such as transition planning are raised and addressed in relation to program settings and objectives.

Obviously there are a number of other technical elements to this bill that I do want to touch upon, but one is it is important to understand that there is a difference between affordable and what we might call social and public housing. I want to touch on affordable housing because it is a different concept and it does come up quite a bit with constituents. Affordable housing is a broad term describing housing suitable for the needs of a range of very low to moderate income households and priced, whether bought or rented, so that these households can meet those other essential living costs.

The bill introduces a legislative framework for affordable housing into the Housing Act 1983 by enabling the declaration of Victorian affordable housing programs, VAHPs. Specific programs declared as VAHPs by the Minister for Housing would address specific housing challenges. The affordable housing rental scheme delivered through the Big Housing Build is one of the VAHPs targeting low to moderate income households in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria based on income eligibility. The affordable housing rental schemes policy settings align to the affordable housing income ranges as defined by the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Essential government-funded service delivery workers such as nurses, police, teachers and careworkers will also be targeted in areas of workforce shortage in regional Victoria, recognising the importance of these jobs to local communities. That is a very, very key bit of this affordable housing change that we have made.

Through a number of government committees—and as the Chair of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee at the time, we did an inquiry into the effects on the tourism and hospitality sector of the impacts of COVID—what we found was the long-term impact of labour shortages, particularly in regional towns. The biggest issue was finding affordable housing options for workers. There were people that wanted to work and wanted to live in those regions, but there were no options. It is a topic that comes up again. I know the federal government is looking at this issue now. They are acutely aware of it. State governments are noticing. It is an issue that many in this chamber are very passionate about, so I am not claiming to be the only person that has heard about this issue. Many have raised the issue—Mr Barton is nodding—of affordable housing. Dr Ratnam is nodding also. That is right. This is an issue that many of us are passionate about. It is about how we find solutions that work for all Victorians. It is not going to be easy, but I think this act is the first step in moving to fix some of that shortfall in those regional areas.

Eligible households on the Victorian housing register will also be targeted to have the opportunity to apply for any relevant affordable rental properties delivered through the affordable housing rental scheme. Future affordable housing programs declared under the framework may have different policy and operational settings. As I said, I just want to touch on some aspects that had not been touched on by my colleagues, because we have talked a lot about the public and social housing side but also the affordable housing side is very important at a time of cost-of-living pressures globally and in our nation and state, with record inflation figures. It is important that a cost-of-living measure is access to affordable housing. Overall the bill delivers on a key commitment we made. It enables the structures to be in place for the Big Housing Build to continue its great work, and it addresses gaps in some of the other legislation, such as the Residential Tenancies Act. All in all, it is a fantastic bill before the house. I commend the minister and their team, and I also commend the bill to the house.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:17): I am pleased to speak on behalf the Greens on the Residential Tenancies, Housing and Social Services Regulation Amendment (Administration and Other Matters) Bill 2022. This bill is formally establishing Homes Victoria by transferring to it the powers, functions and responsibilities currently held by the director of housing. I note that we have heard contributions, particularly from government members, so far this day about what this bill means for the provision of social and affordable housing in Victoria. But while it has something to do with affordable housing, it is really important to understand this bill in context. After years and years of underspending that resulted in Victoria becoming the lowest spending state on social housing anywhere in Australia, it was a relief to hear about the plans for the big build of social housing. This is a step in the right direction that I commend the government for, but it cannot be the last step.

We are facing a housing crisis in Victoria. On any given night 25 000 Victorians experience homelessness and 100 000 people remain on the waiting list for public housing. I would have hoped that a bill like this would be an opportunity to recommit to the need to build tens of thousands of new public homes. However, concerningly what we have instead is the full-blown commercialisation and outsourcing of the government’s responsibility to provide affordable housing. This bill essentially turns the department into a property developer. In the second-reading speech for this bill, the previous Minister for Housing said:

Homes Victoria was established to bring a more commercial way of operating to Victoria’s housing system.

And this bill creates a framework for Homes Victoria to:

… identify the most appropriate models and transaction structures to support a range of options used typically in the property investment and financing market.

The Greens have been concerned for some time about the retreat from public housing we have seen from this government. We have had spin and rhetoric for years now, and in this chamber today, about what is actually happening with public housing in Victoria, and this bill makes it abundantly clear. This is the nail in the coffin for public housing. It makes it very clear that the goal of this government is to abandon the public housing system in favour of community housing managed by private providers and to shift responsibility for the provision of housing to the private sector. It turns our public housing system into a profit-making tool for property developers.

Governments used to be proud of their public housing systems. Just like schools, hospitals and public transport, housing was an essential public service that governments invested big in. In the postwar period in the 1950s and 60s Victoria built thousands of high-quality public homes that housed families, essential workers, veterans, migrants, refugees and so many more people. But since the spread of neoliberalism in the 1980s governments on both sides of politics have steadily turned their backs on public housing, handing responsibility for housing over to the private sector and expecting developers, community groups and private landlords to provide housing. This approach has been disastrous for housing affordability in Victoria and for the many people who live in or who are waiting for public homes. We have had no net increase in the number of public housing units for over a decade. The public housing waiting list has hit a record high of 55 000 households, an increase of 55 per cent in the last five years. This is over 100 000 people—families, children, young people—who are waiting years for a public home. Many more Victorians are living in housing stress—spending more than the 30 per cent of their income on housing—and at risk of homelessness.

These days the government will not even say the phrase ‘public housing’, preferring to use the umbrella term ‘social housing’. To do this reflects a lack of priority in public housing and the quite obvious approach to replace public housing. It starts with the language to shape the public debate and take public housing out of the debate, and it ends with the demolition of our public housing estates, as is happening at 10-plus estates, and counting, across Victoria as we speak.

The government’s recent announcement of its Big Housing Build was a long-overdue investment in housing in Victoria, but these 12 000 new homes will barely scratch the surface of the need for public and affordable homes in our state. The majority of these homes will be community housing managed by private organisations, a type of affordable housing which is less secure and more expensive than public housing and, as the Ombudsman recently found, provides tenants with fewer rights and multiple problems. Many of these homes are built on land that previously held 100 per cent public housing and will now be a mix of community, affordable and market rental homes.

The government says that this model, the privatisation of public housing estates, is the only way to redevelop older public housing estates and create new social homes at the same time. But these projects will only result in a tiny increase in social homes—around 10 per cent—and in many cases will actually reduce the number of bedrooms available. The government’s spin about the ground lease model does not stack up, and we are yet to see the detail about how it will work in practice. The government cannot keep claiming that it is not a privatisation model if it does not reveal what fees are being paid to developers, what subsidies are being provided to the property industry and how the titles will be managed into the future. The lack of transparency about this whole program should trouble us all very, very deeply. Just look at what happened at one of the first test sites many years ago for the model of this privatisation of public housing estates at Kensington. The developer, Becton, made profits of $45 million from the project, 265 public housing units were lost from the estate and the land was sold at 5 per cent of its true value to the developer.

The redevelopment model favours the developers, who stand to make millions in profit from the redeveloped sites. At Walker Street the private homes on the site are located along the Merri Creek while the social homes have been squeezed onto the High Street side. At Barak Beacon, public housing in good condition is being destroyed so new market rentals on the site can have beachfront views. The fact that the homes are in good condition yet still being destroyed is especially concerning. It means residents are being displaced from their homes and their communities in order to squeeze more non-public homes, community and affordable and market rental homes onto the estates, which means it seems to be less about providing more affordable homes and more about ensuring developers get whatever returns they were promised.

The Greens have been opposed to this redevelopment model since it was first proposed, and I am really concerned that the move in this bill to create a commercially focused Homes Victoria is only going to lock Victoria into this approach for decades to come, where our major government housing body is more interested in forming partnerships with property developers and maximising their returns on investments than in providing secure, affordable public homes for everyone. I wish, instead of the bill that we are debating, that we were debating a bill that is before this house to end homelessness by 2030, requiring the government to develop a plan that it is held accountable to, including housing as a human right in Victoria’s human rights charter, or debating the motions to build 100 000 new public homes—both bills and motions that are before this house that I have introduced.

This government should be worried that its housing legacy is likely to be the mass sell-off of precious public housing land, the transferral of public housing units into private management and having presided over a rapidly worsening affordability crisis. This bill attempts to respond to the crisis by establishing a framework for what the government calls ‘Victorian affordable housing programs’. The minister will be able to declare specific affordable housing programs to be affordable housing programs under the act. Homes Victoria would then have full control over the operational and policy detail of each program, determining specifics like eligibility, application and selection processes, tenancy length, rent and dispute resolution processes. But what guarantees does the public get that this will actually be for public benefit and that it will not weaken the rights and protections of the people who live there? While we are pleased to see the government acknowledge that rental affordability is a major issue, we are not convinced the solutions the government has proposed in this bill are the right ones.

Victoria is facing a renting crisis. Rents are now skyrocketing back to above prepandemic levels. In Melbourne rents have increased 7.5 per cent from June 2021 rates, three to four times the rate of wage growth. Median house rents are at a record $460 per week, and unit rents are not far behind at $410. In regional Victoria median rents are up 10 per cent from last year, with the annual rent increase as high as a massive 22 per cent in some local government areas. The rental vacancy rate is below 1 per cent in every regional area except one, and it is almost as tight in the city. With Victorians feeling the pinch as energy, food and petrol prices increase across the board, rent increases of as much as $50 to $100 a week are simply not sustainable. Many renters are just one rent increase away from eviction.

The government has indicated that the affordable housing rental scheme announced earlier this year is the first scheme under this program, but we have had very little information about how this scheme will work beyond that it will provide 2400 affordable rentals, rental agreements will be offered for a period of three years and it will be open to low to moderate income households. Key questions that remain include: what will happen to this housing after the three-year period? Will it revert back to full private housing? What compensation will the state government get for the subsidies for fast-tracking that the developers were provided with if the housing reverts to private housing after this period? How can we guarantee that developers are not going to game this system?

We would like to see the government be bolder on tackling the rental crisis by controlling how much rents can be increased by at any one time and by capping the amount of an annual rent increase. Rent controls are used in many cities across the globe to stop skyrocketing rents and provide more affordable rentals for residents. In cities like New York, Dublin and even Canberra governments have limited how much rents can increase by—usually around 2 per cent or the rate of inflation. In fact we have even introduced successful rental controls right here in Victoria. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic we froze rents and banned evictions—crucial measures that kept renters in their homes and out of poverty and financial stress. We have proved not only that these kinds of government interventions in the private rental market are possible but that they work. There is no reason we cannot do this again now.

I will be moving an amendment in the committee stage to introduce rent caps into the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 to cap annual rent increases at the rate of the Victorian wage price index, and I am happy for my amendments to be circulated now.

Greens amendments circulated by Dr RATNAM pursuant to standing orders.

Dr RATNAM: I will speak more to my amendments if we are able to debate them during the committee stage, as they have been determined to fall outside the scope of this bill.

One of the purposes of this bill is to amend the Housing Act 1983 and the Residential Tenancies Act in relation to the provision of affordable housing. Rent caps are a major affordability reform for the hundreds of thousands of Victorians in the private market, and introducing them as part of this bill would be life changing for the many renters facing exorbitant rent increases. I would encourage this chamber to think a bit bigger and go a bit further when it comes to housing affordability reform. We need to debate the rental crisis in this state, and this bill gives us an opportunity. Given this bill states that one of its ambitions is to improve housing affordability, we believe that it is fit and proper for these amendments to be debated in that context, because a cap on rent increases will go significantly to improving rental and housing affordability in Victoria.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (14:30): I rise to speak to the Residential Tenancies, Housing and Social Services Regulation Amendment (Administration and Other Matters) Bill 2022. This bill seeks to deliver on the government’s commitment to the expansion of an effective and sustainable social and affordable housing system. Every Victorian deserves to have a home—not just having a roof over their head, but a place where they have a sense of stability, security, privacy and safety and a space they can control. Before the last state election the Council to Homeless Persons produced an election platform. In that document they said:

Homelessness should be rare, the experience brief, and it should not recur in cycles of repeated homelessness. With the right measures in place, homelessness is preventable, early intervention achievable, and that keeping people housed is possible.

I fully agree with that. They called on the government to build 3000 new public and community dwellings year after year for the next 10 years. Under the government’s Big Housing Build there is a target of 9300 new social housing units over four years. That is great. It is definitely needed. But it is just not enough, and it also has not been delivered. The state’s social housing stock has grown by just 12 500 dwellings over the past 15 years. That is about 830 dwellings a year. This government have been sitting on their hands for the last few years, if not the last 10. 3830 is a big discrepancy. Only when it gets close to an election do they roll out the big build. This bill is not going to be a miracle delivering a big build.

I questioned last sitting week the number of people on the waiting list in Western Metropolitan Region. I understand that a number of the families in my electorate cannot be easily identified, so I will just have to go by the state government’s figures. The waitlist for public and community housing in Victoria has ballooned in the past five years, from 35 392 in June 2017 to 54 945 in March this year. That is an increase of 55 per cent. If you are keeping up with me, that is in five years another 20 000 people on the waiting list. I am guessing a little bit of lockdown created more people needing housing, as well as the cost of living and the problems that this government has actually created for Victorians, with people losing their businesses and their livelihoods from lockdowns that did not need to occur. The increase has been almost entirely in the area of priority need—in other words, desperate people who have been thrown out on the street because they have lost their businesses and their jobs. That is the 18 574 households added to the priority list during that time. There are now over 30 000 people on the priority waiting list for housing.

There is one area of the bill that I am particularly concerned about, and I will quote the second-reading speech, which states that the bill will provide Homes Victoria with flexibility required to ‘identify the most appropriate models and transaction structures to support a range of options’, including ‘the establishment of companies, joint ventures, trusts, partnerships’ and other arrangements and ‘to invest, lend and contribute funds’ in a number of ways to ‘support the Big Housing Build’.

Let me just point out this government’s track record in managing projects. We have the West Gate Tunnel Project with a cost ballooning by billions of dollars. We have the Footscray Hospital, a great project. I think it was $500 million over budget, about 30 per cent. As well, we know that my community in Footscray still does not know what this government’s plans are for the old Footscray Hospital site—the general hospital, the medical precinct. They want to know what the plans are for the old Footscray Hospital site now, before the next state election. My community want that medical precinct during a pandemic to actually guarantee that there are still medical services provided on that site. Are there going to be better mental health facilities? Will there be detox and rehabilitation facilities? That is what my community wants. That is what they need in the west.

We have the western roads upgrade, where work was completed below standard and where contractors went broke and subcontractors were not paid. We had the fridge replacement program, where subcontractors just tried to make a quick buck. We have the Suburban Rail Loop, which will cost more than the benefits it will provide and apparently is $100 billion over what they first budgeted. That is just a few of the government blowouts—the mismanagement and financial mismanagement. Here we are talking about housing, a priority of the community, but this government’s priorities are big project blowout projects—not houses, not hospitals.

We all know that there is financial mismanagement by this government. We have more debt than the rest of the eastern seaboard, but we are supposed to believe that Homes Victoria is capable enough to enter into investing, lending and contributing funds in a number of ways. This bill gives enormous powers to Homes Victoria to enter into all manner of arrangements. Where are the checks and balances in place? They are definitely not in this bill. We have public housing being pulled down in some very desirable areas, such as Prahran, Port Melbourne and Richmond, just to name a few. I could probably even put Flemington and Kensington on their next hit list for demolishing, going through this project, because obviously the property prices are going up there. What about Williamstown or even Footscray? You have got social housing there. Why not pull it down and see if you can make a quick buck, if it is not replaced by a developer? Do not tell me that prime spots will not be used to build residential housing for massive profits. Public housing will get slim pickings. That is going to be the case, absolutely, and how much of those profits will go back into public housing? This is nothing more than this government trying to claw back money to reduce the debt that they created within the lockdowns that we did not need. This government urgently needs to increase our supply of public housing, but I do have concerns with this bill and the way this government goes about their mismanaging of budgets and actually taxing the community.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria—Minister for Water, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Equality) (14:39): This is a bill which enacts a variety of changes to give effect to what is Australia’s largest ever investment in social housing. As a number of speakers have noted today, this is an investment which is extremely welcomed as a consequence of what it will deliver for new and upgraded homes across the state. This is where the framework established by this bill is of particular importance—in making sure that we are not just partnering with a range of stakeholders across the housing sector, across the organisations of people who liaise with the director of housing and, as it will be known upon carriage of this bill, Homes Victoria, but also addressing the legislative framework for affordable renting and making sure that we preserve the integrity and sustainability of the national rental affordability scheme and we have continuity of that scheme in Victoria.

Making sure that the voices of renters are able to be preserved and considered by VCAT is another part of the changes effected by this bill, The amendments to the Housing Act 1983 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 complement a range of different steps that we have taken since being elected to make sure that affordability, dignity, engagement, consistency of process and sustainability are at the heart of the work that we have done. We also want to make sure that we are in a position to have a sustainable model that will deliver those improvements across that $5.3 billion spend, not just in metropolitan Melbourne but also in regional and rural Victoria, which is where at least $1.25 billion of that money is being allocated to alleviate the challenges of housing supply shortage across the areas outside of Melbourne.

I want to turn briefly to the amendments that have been proposed by the Liberal members of the opposition and by the Greens. I will begin with the Liberal amendment. In relation to that amendment, we will not be supporting that amendment on the basis that it does not specify a time period for disallowance. The ability to disallow a thing done by Homes Victoria is open-ended, meaning that the Parliament could in effect potentially disallow contracts after they have been entered into, but it could go beyond that if, and I quote, ‘a thing done’ includes the construction of the projects themselves. This would lead to significant uncertainty for contractors, workers and apprentices—the very people who we are trying to provide certainty for, as much as anything, through the affordable rental schemes and other initiatives. It also means uncertainty for people on the waiting lists and those who are the object and the rationale for this Australia-leading investment.

The process proposed by the Liberal amendment for a disallowance to occur does not exist. It would need to be a case whereby all transactions were tabled in the Parliament and then the Parliament could disallow them. That is something which the opposition has not, to our minds, carefully considered. But when we talk about what is underpinning this amendment, it fundamentally comes back to the fact that the opposition has designed it to stop or to delay social housing projects. It is about vocal groups who do not want social housing in their neighbourhoods and communities using Parliament to stop those government projects from going ahead. It could in effect, if we read the terms of the amendment, lead to the Parliament disallowing projects because opposition MPs do not like the colour of the bricks used on homes. If they do not like the process involved in planning approvals, they might then seek to disallow those approvals.

We do not want to enable the delay of construction of homes or indeed to stop them completely. We want to be able to make sure that the not-for-profit and private sectors can partner with government. This amendment would create and entrench a disincentive for that to occur. Government contracts would be too uncertain for small business, particularly in an environment and circumstance where certainty is everything for small business, and we hear that time and time again from those opposite. This is precisely why their amendment does not stack up against the rationales that exist for this Big Housing Build. And we want to make sure that across the board we are walking the talk on making sure that we have stable, secure and affordable housing into the future in a way that is consistent and reliable.

Turning to the Greens amendment to address a number of things that Dr Ratnam has said, under our reforms that already exist rents can only be increased once every 12 months and landlords need to state in the rental agreement how that increase will be calculated. They also need to notify the renter 60 days in advance of that rent increase. In the current economic environment, with interest rates increasing, we have got concerns about the impact that the Greens amendment would have on the private rental market—noting of course the occupancy rates and the issues that Dr Ratnam outlined in her contribution. It is precisely these shortages and supply issues which have underpinned the basis for the affordable rental housing scheme and the initiatives that we have taken to date. When that sits alongside the Big Housing Build it is about making sure we give this scheme every opportunity to succeed, including through those partnership models. We also want to make sure that it is clear that while the Residential Tenancies Act does not in fact regulate the amount of rent that can be charged, it does outline rights and responsibilities for rental payments, and that includes bonds and rents and other costs.

We have seen time and time again that rent control does not actually deliver the benefits that some might claim it does. It in fact affects the supply of rental properties and it leads to a decline in the private rental sector. We know from examples internationally like New York and San Francisco that that has been the case in those rental control environments. They have had constrained supply, for example, in the States, and that has led to further barriers for low-income households as far as those scenarios operate. This would happen in Victoria were there to be a rent control arrangement that applied here. Most price controls have been done away with in the context of that advanced economic setting, and we just want to make sure that we are not inviting unintended consequences, including a reduction in the supply of established dwellings used as rental supply stock or the quality of private rental stock, with that reduced set of incentives for landlords to maintain rental dwellings.

There are a range of protections that exist for renters that have been developed, proposed and indeed passed in the Parliament as far as unfair rent increases go, and they are about long-term certainty for addressing this particular part of the cost of living. They have been in place for some time.

I am looking forward to an opportunity to perhaps provide some further information and answers to what will no doubt be questions relating to the Greens amendment and also to that position advanced by the members opposite, but we will not be supporting the Greens amendment or the Liberal amendment as they seek to amend this particular bill.

Finally, before I sit down I do want to acknowledge the tireless work of the former Minister for Housing, Richard Wynne in the other place. His has been a herculean effort over many, many years to lean into a very, very difficult situation of complex and interlinking economic and place-based challenges. Formerly Minister Wynne, the member for Richmond has done Victoria proud in the work that he has led to embed and commence these extraordinary reforms. His is a contribution that, should this bill be passed in this Parliament today without amendment, will endure and provide enormous levels of comfort, certainty and security for people who will continue to benefit long after we have all left this Parliament. On that basis, I commend this bill for a second reading and look forward to the committee stage.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Instruction to committee

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp) (14:49): Dr Ratnam has circulated amendments, and I am advised that the President has considered those amendments, set SR116C. In the President’s view these amendments are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 15.07 is required.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:50): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider amendments and new clauses to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 to provide for a limit on rent increases in accordance with the wage price index for Victoria published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

If I can speak briefly to the rationale for moving these amendments and needing to think about the scope, as I mentioned during my second-reading contribution, just in case I am not able to debate it should it be decided by the chamber that they consider the amendments out of scope and do not wish to debate them, clause 1 of this bill sets out the main purposes of the bill, which include:

to amend the Housing Act 1983 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 in relation to the provision of affordable housing …

When we are talking about affordable housing in Victoria, we also have to talk about rentals. My amendments will introduce a rent cap for all renters in Victoria. They will limit the amount of rent increase to the rate of the Victorian wage price index. Victoria is in a rental and cost-of-living crisis. Out-of-control rent increases are pushing people into homelessness and are forcing renters to choose between paying the rent, putting food on the table or heating their homes in winter. Supporting a cap on out-of-control rent increases is a way to help thousands of Victorians struggling with the cost of living right now. We have chosen to link rent increases to wages as they reflect the ability of the renter to pay. With wages stagnating across the economy, in part due to the public sector wages cap, rents increasing, as they have been, well above wages will continue to put pressure on renters into the future.

The key to addressing housing affordability in Australia is shifting our policy settings away from viewing housing as primarily an investment for creating wealth to treating housing as a right of all to have a home. Rent caps are a common method for introducing stability into the housing system. It is not a new idea, but the time is now ripe for it to happen here in Victoria and indeed around the country.

To tackle the housing crisis we need to be bold. We need to aim for building 100 000 new public homes in the next decade, like Scotland, and we need to address the crisis facing renters. I urge members in this place to take action today to help address the rental and cost-of-living crises affecting so many Victorians and allow for these amendments to be debated properly in the committee stage.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14:52): Just briefly, the coalition will support this motion to expand the scope to allow Dr Ratnam’s amendments to be considered, and I say that from the point of principle that we believe members of this chamber should have the opportunity to explore concepts which are outside the scope of a bill but close to the scope of a bill. I make that point in particular because at times we do see amendments come here which are well outside the scope of the bill, which frankly does not help the house in giving positive consideration to scope motions. I think it helps the house where amendments are at least close to the purpose of the bill when members seek scope motions. But in this instance we will support the scope motion, as it has been our principle to support scope motions to give members of this house the opportunity to consider broader matters.

I note that really the only party that benefits from the house rejecting scope motions is the government. I understand the government may have a different view, but I would urge other members of this house in the mutual interest of all non-government members to support this scope motion and provide Dr Ratnam with the opportunity to prosecute her amendments in the committee of the whole.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14:54): The Liberal Democrats’ position on this is similar to the opposition’s. Whilst being strongly opposed to these amendments, we do not oppose the scope motion in order to debate it and would allow Dr Ratnam that opportunity.

House divided on motion:

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (15:02)

Mr DAVIS: I just have a couple of very small questions to begin with. The first relates to the housing waiting list data which is due out. When will the government release the most recent data? That is available now, we understand, but it has not been released.

Ms SHING: Thank you, Mr Davis. The usual process will apply for the release of housing data, and it will be provided in the ordinary course of processes that currently operate. It is usually provided within about eight or nine weeks after the end of the quarter in question. Therefore it would appear by my back-of-the-envelope calculations, without in fact an envelope in front of me, that that is in the next couple of weeks.

Mr DAVIS: My information, and my recollection, is that it is actually provided more quickly than that usually and the data would have been due normally by about the end of July, so we are well into, as it were, time-on—picking up the football parlance of the Deputy President.

Ms SHING: That is not going to make any sense to me, Mr Davis—a football-free zone over here.

Mr DAVIS: Well, what I would say is it would be helpful. You may not be able to do this immediately, but the staff may well be able to provide some indication about when we get that data.

Ms SHING: Thanks, Mr Davis. Firstly, if we could remove any references to football or indeed to sport in the course of this committee stage, I suspect it will be a much more straightforward process. Mr Davis, I am of the understanding that the release of this data is imminent, as I said, and that it will be released in accordance with ordinary processes and time frames—being about eight or nine weeks after the end of the quarter in question.

Dr RATNAM: I move:

1. Clause 1, page 2, after line 11 insert—

“(ab) to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 to provide for a limit on rent increases in accordance with the wage price index for Victoria published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics;”.

I will speak very, very briefly because I spoke more substantively during the procedural discussion just before. Just to reiterate, Victoria is facing a housing affordability crisis and renters are doing it very, very tough. We are hearing weekly from renters who are really struggling with the cost-of-living pressures bearing down on them, with housing being one of the most significant contributors to those cost-of-living pressures. We know rents are being put up well beyond what people are able to afford to pay. Rents are rising three to four times higher than wages, with wages stagnating, and with all the other inflationary pressures that renters—which is a large cohort of Victorians, particularly young Victorians—are experiencing it is incumbent on us that we think about ways to support them.

A cap on rent increases in line with wage growth is appropriate. It will not undermine the whole rental market. As much as the industry likes to run scare campaigns around these things, we know in other jurisdictions these measures have worked effectively—in Australian jurisdictions as well. They are an important lever and control that we can use to provide some much-needed relief for people who are doing it really, really tough right now. It is really important, we believe, that governments are able to regulate somewhat these pressures that are hitting Victorians very, very hard. We believe our amendment hits the right balance between heeding the concerns about what happens to housing supply and the rental market and providing the much-needed relief that renters are desperately asking for.

Ms SHING: Thank you, Dr Ratnam, not only for the amendment and your comments as part of the second-reading debate but for what you have just put on the record. There are a couple of areas where the government is in absolute agreement with you. They relate in particular to the fact that rental stress is a very real issue. In the second-reading speech the minister has made it really clear that there is a growing gap between existing private market rental opportunities and social housing but also that one in four of the 650 000 households in the private rental market is spending 30 per cent or more of their income on rent and that then reduces the money that is available to pay for other household and daily expenses. This growing gap has been part of the discussion on the Victorian affordable housing program and the affordable housing rental scheme, and that is about delivering an initial 2400 affordable rental homes to address those affordability pressures in metropolitan Melbourne and also in regional centres and to alleviate or provide a point of relief for supply and affordability issues as part of that overall big build.

The point that you have made around rent controls is not a view that the government shares in relation to the way in which schemes on rent control have had a consequence of upward pressure on supply and on rental availability and terms in places like New York City and San Francisco. Price controls have largely fallen away from mechanisms to address affordability because of those unintended consequences that result around a reduction in supply of established dwellings, the way in which they might be used as private rental stock and also the quality of rental stock with those reduced incentives. This is a common feature of a cost-control environment where the incentives are removed and the maintenance and upkeep of rental properties or other commodities that are the subject of cost control in those arrangements decline. We are concerned that this would lead to fewer homes being made available for rent and that that would be anathema to the objectives of the Big Housing Build and of finding and delivering sites and accommodation for those 12 000 new homes across the state, including as they relate to affordable housing in metropolitan and regional Victoria.

Mr LIMBRICK: Whilst I am sympathetic to the concerns about renters finding things unaffordable, I am very happy to hear the minister speaking sense on economics, and I agree with her. So I am very happy; you will not hear me say that very often. In fact I totally agree with what the minister has said about rent controls. I would go further and say that this type of socialist pricing—the government taking over pricing controls—shows the economic naivete of the Greens party when we have an iron law of economics that price caps equal shortages, except a shortage in this case is a shortage of housing. What the Greens are proposing here is a plan that will ultimately increase homelessness. It should be rejected outright.

Mr DAVIS: I find myself in a position where I actually do have to agree with the minister on this matter. I listened as she mentioned New York, and I thought back to lots of first- and second-year economics and things like that. The history of price controls is not good. It is counterproductive. It is very clear that harsh, rigid, vicious price controls lead to less housing stock and lead to greater homelessness and a deteriorating quality of rental stock as well. There are real concerns with an unsophisticated scheme of this type. I think the minister is right and Mr Limbrick is right, and I think on this one the Greens are wrong.

Ms SHING: Just to respond to the comments that have been made, in relation to Mr Limbrick’s and Mr Davis’s remarks on the amendment and to go back to one of the elements of Dr Ratnam’s amendment, it is also important to place on the record the work that we have done to reform the rental system since the beginning of last year. To perhaps provide you with a measure of assurance, Dr Ratnam, those rental increases have as a consequence of legislative change been limited to increases only once every 12 months. Landlords, as I said earlier, need to state in a rental agreement how those rental increases will be calculated. There is a notification period of 60 days in advance of any rent increase.

Also, there are a range of other improvements which are intended to have and are having the operative effect of levelling a playing field of sorts around really minor but important things that make a house into a home. This is about opportunities to make minor modifications to properties; minimum standards, including minimum efficiency and energy standards; the opportunity to have pets in rental properties—as we know, Victoria is one of the highest pet ownership uptake jurisdictions in the world; and also the introduction of long-term leases, which enable leases beyond a five-year period. These are the sorts of changes that have already been made, which are already in operation. It is important to recognise that, against the backdrop of this housing bill and the residential tenancy set of amendments, there is that commitment to improving the everyday opportunities for renters within a tight market and within a difficult economic environment to actually have that livability and affordability in order to participate and to meet the cost of living in a constrained economic environment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Dr Ratnam’s amendment 1, which tests all of her remaining amendments, be agreed to.

Committee divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 (15:21)

Mr DAVIS: I just want to be brief. Clause 22 inserts new section 26 into the Housing Act 1983, and it relates to project funds. It points to a series of things and ways that money can get into the funds, and then it points to a series of ways by which money can move out of the funds. I wonder if the minister can explain with respect to new section 26 in the bill, ‘Homes Victoria may pay money out of a project fund’: in subsection (3)(e), what does ‘for any other purpose authorised by or under this act or any other act’ mean?

Ms SHING: Thanks, Mr Davis, for that. The definitions that you have referred to relate to money that can only in fact be paid for the purposes of the Housing Act and indeed for other legislation. Other examples of this would be local government rates, for example, and these are levied through the Local Government Act 2020. So it is about that related legislative framework.

Mr DAVIS: It is pretty broad, though.

Ms SHING: As I have just outlined, there is a need for a direct correlation between the moneys paid and the purposes for which they can be paid. I would just take you back to the local government framework and the way in which government rates need to be tied to that in the way in which they are paid. The safeguard is in fact that Parliament would have to authorise this because it is in legislation. That means that the minister cannot simply decide the framework within which this operates and that it does in fact have to be authorised in the legislation itself.

Mr DAVIS: Does the minister have a list of the other acts that are involved here?

Ms SHING: No.

Clause agreed to; clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 (15:24)

Mr DAVIS: I move:

1. Clause 24, line 12, omit “With” and insert “(1) With”.

2. Clause 24, page 28, after line 5 insert—

“(2) A thing done by Homes Victoria under this section may be disallowed in whole or in part by either House of Parliament.”.

3. Clause 24, page 28, line 31, omit ‘suffer.”.’ and insert “suffer.”.

4. Clause 24, page 28, after line 31 insert—

‘(3) A thing done by a Homes Victoria subsidiary under this section may be disallowed in whole or in part by either House of Parliament.”.’.

This proposed amendment relates to clause 24. It is very simple in scope. It actually allows disallowance of the actions:

A thing done by Homes Victoria under this section may be disallowed in whole or in part by either House …

Essentially this is a check on the activities of Homes Victoria. Those actions should be disallowable. This is obviously something that would be used sparingly, but it is unfortunate that there is no disallowance provision already in the act.

Ms SHING: Thanks, Mr Davis. Just to go to the nature of the amendment as it has been proposed, there is nothing in the amendment itself that indicates that it is, to quote you, to be ‘used sparingly’. In addition to that, the amendment does not specify any time period for a disallowance. That then means that it is open-ended, and potentially there could be a disallowance or an attempt once contracts are entered into. Once they have been entered into, those projects where a disallowance operates would be very vulnerable to uncertainty for contractors, for workers, for apprentices—for people involved in those jobs. Nor is there in the amendment that you have proposed any process by which a disallowance could occur. If it were being enacted, it would need all transactions to be tabled in the Parliament and then Parliament to disallow that for the sake of certainty. In essence we could see the Parliament disallowing social housing projects, as I indicated prior to the second-reading debate concluding, because communities do not want to live next door to homes with people living in them who have significant mental health needs, for example, or Aboriginal Victorians or women escaping family violence. We could see the Parliament disallowing projects because, as I said earlier, someone might not like the colour of bricks that are being used or they want to relitigate planning approvals that are not within the scale of the objective of this.

Mr DAVIS: Do you think that the Parliament would actually do that?

Ms SHING: Mr Davis, I will just take up the question you have asked, ‘Do you think the Parliament would actually do that?’. The point is, Mr Davis, that I do not know, and therefore it is that level of uncertainty where if we do not know the way in which an operation of a disallowance might operate to cause uncertainty or to reduce the availability of an opportunity that is being established through this legislative framework, then in fact it is a very high-risk proposition to say that what you are proposing would not be used in a way such as that which I have outlined.

In short, the impact of the amendment as you have put it would be to delay the construction of homes, to stop them completely or indeed to create that apprehension of risk that would see a reluctance of community housing providers or the private sector to enter into partnerships with government. I am going to take you back to the second-reading speech. That is one of the founding principles of this particular legislative reform. I will—and Dr Cumming referred to this in her contribution—take you back to that part of the second-reading speech, namely that:

Homes Victoria was established to bring a more commercial way of operating to Victoria’s housing system. Renewing and substantially expanding Victoria’s social and affordable housing stock is critical to make sure we have a sustainable housing system that can deliver for generations to come. Key to this will be Homes Victoria’s capacity to implement innovative financing models.

The Bill will enshrine an enabling legislative framework for Homes Victoria to identify the most appropriate models and transaction structures to support a range of options used typically in the property investment and financing market. These will include the establishment of companies, joint ventures, trusts, partnerships to invest, lend and contribute funds that support the Big Housing Build.

Therefore, Mr Davis, in our view the amendment as it is proposed would undermine the certainty which we are seeking to establish. Indeed the disincentives to partner would create very real downstream impacts, and government contracts would be too uncertain for small businesses, the very wheelhouse of the coalition’s priorities, to supply projects that impact upon thousands of jobs.

Dr RATNAM: I would like to speak to Mr Davis’s amendment. Thank you, Mr Davis, for bringing this before us. A number of us have agreed previously in this chamber about the principle and the need for disallowability, particularly in relation to planning scheme amendments, and have spoken out against the removal of disallowability provisions in a number of particularly fast-tracking bills in regard to planning that we have seen in this chamber. I maintain that position. I am sympathetic to the intent of this amendment; however, I need to speak to the process that has occurred for this to come before us.

We have not been given an appropriate chance to consider this, given this amendment was tabled during Mr Davis’s contribution without any previous notice to members of this chamber. It does not give us the opportunity to really consider the implications, the flow-on impacts, and to get advice. I understand that we are in an environment where things have to move relatively quickly. However, we have undermined the ability for us to consider this deeply with the process that has been used today to bring this before us. While I still support the principle of disallowability, and I would love to be in the position to support this, the fact is we have had less than a few hours to consider it and no chance to think through the unintended consequences, as the minister has outlined.

There are serious concerns raised about this because the provision the opposition is applying this to is really broad ranging. It is beyond what we normally consider in planning scheme amendments, which are quite specific, as the minister referred to. There is a process by which documents are tabled. There is a defined process by which you know at what point a decision can be made disallowable. This does not have any of that defined. None of that information has been furnished to us during the course of this debate, and because of that process issue, I am not in a position to support it, unfortunately.

Mr LIMBRICK: The Liberal Democrats also will not be supporting this amendment. We find ourselves in the same position as the Greens. I have not been briefed on this. I am not sure of the unintended consequences. In fact the first time I saw this amendment was when a government adviser sent it to me asking for our thoughts on it. We have not had time to consider it, but in the consideration that I have given to this I do agree with Dr Ratnam that, although agreeing with the principle of things being disallowed by Parliament, the scope of disallowance here is so broad that we could end up in situations where people who want to invest in these sorts of projects would feel very uncomfortable about the projects going ahead knowing that they would have it hanging over their heads with no time frame set here that the project could be knocked on the head at any point for anything that they are doing, as far as I can read this. Although my interpretation of the unintended consequences of this amendment might not have been given full consideration, I do not think that they can have been given full consideration in the time that we have allowed, so we will not be supporting it.

Mr BOURMAN: I find myself in the unfortunate position of being in complete agreement with the Greens.

Mr HAYES: It is a pity all these objections have been brought up against it. I would love to support a disallowance motion that would work. I really feel that disallowance is important. It worked well in the previous Parliament when some social housing projects were sent back to the drawing board and much improved through being disallowed. That applied to the Markham estate and the New Street, Brighton, one which was talked about. I was on council when that one came up. The council objected to it and the community had big concerns about it.

It is not because there are nimbys and that sort of thing and that people do not want social housing. Every council in Southern Metropolitan—and I have spoken to them all—wants more social housing. Everyone is happy with well-designed, well-built social housing. It is just when these projects go right through the council controls in that area with no regard to council and communities, when they are proposed and forced through, it is great to have a chamber that can disallow such things. If there was a way of making this work, I would be very much in favour of it. It is a pity, because we have planning scheme amendments like VC189 and 190 purposely put through to stop Parliament from having its rightful control over the planning scheme.

Mr DAVIS: In the circumstances we will withdraw the amendment and look at another way to bring forward these provisions. There are other ways that we can do it. In that circumstance I am persuaded that that is the fairest way forward.

Amendments withdrawn.

Clause 24 agreed to; clauses 25 to 68 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria—Minister for Water, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Equality) (15:35): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria—Minister for Water, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Equality) (15:35): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

In doing so I just want to again commend the former Minister for Housing, Richard Wynne, for these seismic changes to the housing, social housing and affordable rental property markets in Victoria. This is intergenerational change, and this is a framework whereby people across the state in most need of good decision-making and remedial, facilitative and dignified assistance can get what they need and make the contributions that they wish to make in the communities that they wish to call home. So I thank the former housing minister and also the incumbent housing minister, Minister Pearson, in the other place for this extensive work and for the engagement with stakeholders and community members along the way.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

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

House divided on question:

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have gone through the bill and agreed to the same without amendment.