Tuesday, 17 October 2023

Housing

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:48): (298) My question is to the Minister for Housing. Minister, as I have raised before in this place, your government’s recent housing statement has sounded the death knell for public housing in Victoria, with the government yet to commit to retaining or rebuilding any public housing at each site where the towers are to be destroyed. To add insult to injury, the plan will see the mass sell-off of the majority of each public housing site, amounting to the greatest betrayal of public housing residents of any government anywhere in Australia. We already know that no public consultation occurred prior to the announcement of the plans to destroy the towers, let alone any consultation with public housing residents, but we have also heard that your own agencies responsible for housing may not have been consulted or informed either. Minister, was Homes Victoria consulted or informed about the plans to destroy 44 public housing towers before the former Premier Daniel Andrews announced it as part of the housing statement press conference?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (14:49): Dr Ratnam, last sitting week I heard you stand up and ask a couple of questions about social housing, and it went along the lines of development of the tower sites and your concerns about the proportion of social housing on those sites. Then immediately after that your colleague Mr Puglielli stood up and talked about the lack of affordable housing in the state and the desire to be able to find and secure an affordable home.

Nicholas McGowan: On a point of order, President, the minister is clearly debating something that has not even been raised in this question. The question she is actually addressing is a question asked in the last session of Parliament. I ask you to bring her to order.

The PRESIDENT: The minister has had a bit over 30 seconds; I am sure she will come to the answer.

Harriet SHING: When Mr Puglielli got to his feet and started bemoaning the lack of affordable housing, it was a pretty stark contrast actually, because what Mr Puglielli seems to be wanting is a greater density of affordable housing in and around key locations such as the CBD and areas that are close to amenity. When I think about that and I also think about the development of the 44 tower sites to take them from 10,000 residents up to around 30,000 residents with a mix of private, affordable and social housing, I actually wonder how it is that you manage to hold multiple ideas with the same level of enthusiasm in your collective consciousness when in fact we need to be investing in affordable housing across those sites in order to meet demand. When I think about the housing statement and the fact that the way to address shortage in supply is through increasing supply and that when we bring 80,000 new homes online every year for the next 10 years in partnership with –

Nicholas McGowan: On a point of order, President, the question that was asked was clearly in relation to the consultation that has occurred. The minister has yet to even address that issue. I ask you to bring her to order.

The PRESIDENT: I believe that the minister still has over a minute, and I will bring her back to the question.

Harriet SHING: Mr McGowan, it is great to note your interest in this particular area as well, because thanks to the housing statement there is an investment in record engagement as part of the affordability partnership, as part of at least 13,300 additional social housing units across the state – $5.3 billion – plus –

Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, President, I just ask about relevance. I had a very specific question. The minister has gone nowhere near addressing the question. I can repeat the question if she desires, but it was a very specific question about whether Homes Victoria were consulted in the decision to destroy the 44 towers.

The PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, a point of order is not an opportunity to repeat the question, but you got there. The minister has 48 seconds, and there is a provision at the end of question time for me to decide if the minister has answered the question. If you are not happy with my judgement on that, you can call a point of order as well at that point.

Harriet SHING: Thanks very much, President, for that. We are delivering the largest reform to public and social housing in the history of this state. Homes Victoria is a key part of delivering that outcome. Homes Victoria were aware of the housing statement and what it would mean, as they were aware of the $5.3 billion in the development of policy. I am not sure whether it has occurred to you across the way, because you have never actually had the responsibility of government, that when it comes to the setting of policy that is what governments do. Governments set policy, and then the public service sector and agencies work to implement that policy and to provide advice about how that happens in the best possible way. We have continued to engage with tenants through organisations and through Homes Victoria. That is what their wheelhouse is; that is what they are proud of doing.

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:54): Minister, I am frankly disappointed but also shocked that you will not make any attempt to address my question. It was quite a specific question, and the fact that you obfuscated so much to the point that you got to saying that Homes Victoria were aware of the housing statement – well, all of us were aware of the housing statement, because the government had announced that they were announcing a housing statement shortly. That does not satisfy the intent of my question, and it confirms to me, because you have not refuted my question, that Homes Victoria were not consulted. It points once again to a rushed, illogical and frankly disastrous process that undermines any faith the community or the Parliament can have in the robustness of this plan. Minister, furthermore, in preparation for the announcement, what feasibility and assessment work was done to assess the conditions or the need for redevelopment on each of the 44 public housing building sites that you want to destroy?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (14:55): Dr Ratnam, I am not sure if you have actually been onsite at these tower sites. A number of them are not fit for habitation, which is why a number of them are already vacant. You did not even realise that they were vacant when you got to your feet to decry the statement around record investment in social housing. One of the things that we are doing is replacing stock that was built in the 1950s through to the 1970s using very unique single-concrete construction methodology, which cannot in fact – and I am not sure whether you have ever been inside one of these towers – be reconfigured –

Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, President, firstly, there is a misrepresentation of what I might or might not have known. I ask the minister to withdraw. I am quite aware about what is happening at these towers, Minister, and I frankly believe I have been there more than you have. But I had a specific question. My question was: was any feasibility work done on the condition of these towers?

The PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, I believe the minister was relevant to the question that you asked.

Harriet SHING: Dr Ratnam, let us be really, really clear: when you have single-concrete construction, when you have an inability to change the specs of door heights, of ceiling heights and of passageways and when you do not have disability access for the purpose of getting into a bath because there is no step there, there are limits to what we can do to retrofit that to be compliant. Every Victorian deserves a secure, safe and fit-for-purpose home. That is why we are making this record investment. You should get on board because it is entirely in keeping with what you say that you stand for.