Tuesday, 5 March 2024

Housing

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:41): (444) My question is for the Minister for Housing. The Victorian government claims to be building affordable housing; however, it is very unclear to the public what ‘affordable’ actually means when it comes to your government. A constituent has informed me that he applied to Homes Victoria’s affordable housing scheme and won the ballot twice. However, he was rejected both times following an income assessment, which found that the rent for the affordable housing was more than 30 per cent of his income. This is despite falling within the required income thresholds for affordable housing. He was then told to join the decades-long public and community housing waitlist. It is clear that the government’s definition of ‘affordable’ is not working for Victorians on low incomes. Minister, why is the government locking out low-income earners from its affordable housing scheme?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:42): There is a lot in that. Before I do address the question that you have asked, Dr Ratnam, I understand that we do not actually have any record of correspondence received from you in February in relation to the matter raised earlier in question time today, so perhaps you can follow that up and we can address the issues that you have raised around Ashburton. Again, there is no record from my end. As far as –

A member interjected.

Harriet SHING: If only you cared about asking about housing in a substantive way over there, we could actually have a constructive conversation. In terms of affordable housing and the definition of ‘affordability’, that is set out in the EPC legislation. It is regulated by reference to singles and couples, within both a metropolitan and a regional context. This is something which sits at the heart of the way in which housing funding is allocated to renters, not just here in Victoria but also around Australia. The affordable housing rental scheme itself addresses those rental market issues, such as poor renter experience, the sorts of challenges around bias experienced during the application process, uncertain tenure and also housing shortages. Rent is set, as you would know, at 10 per cent below the market rate in metropolitan Melbourne and at market rate in regional Victoria. There is the added protection of a rental cap, which is set at 30 per cent of the midpoint of the moderate-income band in both metro and regional locations. That is the first point about affordable housing.

The other point that I do want to make is that our one-bedroom homes – for example, in Ashburton, to go back to the area that you referred to earlier today – are leasing at $344 a week. That is at a discounted rate due to a rent cap applying. The market rent, for example, is $400. What we are doing is assessing carefully the way in which income is received by a renter in order to ensure that people who fall underneath that threshold are able to access through an established process a home which is intended to be provided for people in difficult and vulnerable financial circumstances. We have delivered a range of housing across metropolitan and regional Victoria that is intended to address accommodation needs for a range of different configurations, and we are intending to keep this work going because we know that affordable housing is at the heart of making sure that –

Nick McGowan: On a point of order, President, on a question of relevance, the minister was asked about a very specific case where an individual has applied on the basis they are eligible to apply and then has been refused on the very basis that they actually do not fall within the threshold. The question was a very specific question, and while I appreciate the minister’s elongated answer to this point, it would be great if the minister was drawn back to the point.

The PRESIDENT: Actually there appeared to be more than one question in the question. I think the minister is being relevant, and I think she actually has addressed the crux of the question.

Harriet SHING: Thank you so much, Mr McGowan. It is always lovely to hear from you so early in a sitting week. We are continuing to do the work around the definition of ‘affordable’ as well as making sure that across the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions there is a uniform understanding of what that means. We are also providing those safeguards and making sure that people who do not sit over that cap are not getting those benefits, which otherwise need to go to people in more vulnerable situations. I am very happy to take additional conversations offline.

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:46): Thank you, Minister. Just going back to the earlier reference to my colleague’s question, we just received responses from your office to questions on notice. Your office clearly has a record of questions on notice, so we did furnish you with them over the last couple of months.

In response to your response to my question, it is quite clear that your program for affordable housing is locking out low-income earners that you presume should be eligible and who have met all of the eligibility otherwise for this affordable housing scheme. So something is going wrong with your definition of ‘affordable’.

The premise of the government’s demolition of Victoria’s 44 public housing towers has been that it will rebuild the towers with community and affordable housing along with a whole bunch of private housing – on public housing land, mind you. There has been no commitment to any public housing being rebuilt on these sites, and the handover to private developers has been justified with the promise of improved housing affordability. Minister, are property developers getting to set the prices for so-called affordable housing and getting to choose who qualifies for these properties so they can maximise their profits?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:47): Okay, Dr Ratnam, let us go for round 15 on this. In terms of the redevelopment of the 44 tower sites, here is something that you should not forget: we are delivering a 10 per cent uplift in social housing across these sites. We are increasing density to manage the sort of population changes that you and your colleagues are so concerned about, as is everybody else around the state, because we know that by 2050 we are going to see a population here in Melbourne about the size of London. What we also know, Dr Ratnam – and you would be wise to actually just take this on board – is the two red brick towers, which you did not even know were empty, are public housing. They are literally going to be public housing. Stop peddling misinformation. We are continuing to work on making sure that affordable housing is part of the mix of housing that we deliver, and we are delivering that housing in ways which meaningfully address the shortage through an investment of not just $5.3 billion but an additional $1 billion for rural and regional housing in ways that address generations of challenge and of disadvantage. Stop peddling lies.