Thursday, 2 May 2024
Bills
Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024
Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:
That the bill be now read a second time.
David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (17:28): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to the Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024. In any event this is a bill that we have some reservations about on two levels. We think there is not sufficient focus on what will be replacing a number of these bodies, and the government has not fleshed out what it intends to do. For that reason, we would seek to move a reasoned amendment, but we would also seek to move a textual amendment. It might be appropriate to circulate both of those now if that is possible.
Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.
David DAVIS: The purpose of the bill is to amend the Estate Agents Act 1980 and abolish the Estate Agents Council. It amends the Business Licensing Authority Act 1998 to facilitate closure of the Sex Work Regulation Fund. It amends the Public Records Act 1973 to abolish the Public Records Advisory Council. It amends the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 in relation to funding dispute resolution and advocacy services.
There are a number of points I would make here. The bill seeks to expand the use of funds from the Victorian Property Fund (VPF) and the Residential Tenancies Fund (RTF) to allow the establishment of a new dispute resolution body and advisory body. The bill does not contain any detail about the new body. I think the contribution of my colleague Mr McCurdy in the lower house outlined a number of the opposition’s concerns, concerns that related to what comes next and how this is to operate, and there did not seem to be any great clarity from the government.
I make a number of points here. The second-reading speech referenced Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria, which was announced as part of the government’s 2023 housing statement. The body is designed to relieve the residential tenancies list cases from VCAT as well as to provide advocacy for tenants and renters. The body itself will not be established through this bill; however, these clauses enable the government to use funding for the establishment of the body. The body will oversee disputes on the Company Titles (Home Units) Act 2013, the Conveyancers Act 2006, the Owners Corporations Act 2006, the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, the Retirement Villages Act 1986, the Rooming House Operators Act 2016, the Sale of Land Act 1962 and any other prescribed housing or property-related matter.
As I say, the Estate Agents Council is abolished, and the government is working through establishing a more informal, flexible and ongoing consultative mechanism to inform policy and the minister. The bill deals with the associated wind-up of both groups – that is, the Public Records Advisory Council – including the logistics behind the members remuneration and the last days of groups. The bill provides no legislative replacement for either of these bodies, and I will come to the Public Records Advisory Council in a moment. As I said, the Sex Work Regulation Fund has a minimal balance, and it is fiscally prudent for it to be dissolved to save on administration costs, as the fund no longer receives any revenue from fines or licensing. Additional amendments are also made to various acts to replace gendered language with non-gendered language and to fix typographical errors. The point here I think is that the government has not provided what replaces a lot of these bodies, and it has not provided detail of the way forward. That is a set of real issues.
The Real Estate Institute of Victoria is concerned about the lack of details, has requested that the bill be delayed and feels the government needs to share more information on the structure, time frame, engagement plan, strategy and new legislative language. Further to this, the REIV has raised concerns about the use of the VPF, which was designed to fund compensation claims from consumers and industry as well as provide specific grants for housing initiatives. They are concerned that the original purpose will be overridden by demands of funding a new dispute resolution service. Further, REIV has expressed concerns about the disbandment of the Estate Agents Council prior to the establishment of an alternative engagement program and the potential removal of industry consultation as well as a result of that. The Strata Community Association of Victoria have indicated they would like further detail on the bill and the proposed dispute resolution body – again, this theme that there is no clarity about the way going forward.
I move our reasoned amendment:
That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘the bill be withdrawn and not reintroduced until the government provides:
(1) proof that tenants and rental providers will not be disadvantaged by the bill;
(2) more information about how the Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria (RDRV) will work;
(3) a breakdown of costings and how the RDRV will be funded;
(4) advice on the time line of when each stage of establishing the RDRV will be reached and for full operations;
(5) details on how the minister intends to seek advice in the absence of the Estate Agents Council (EAC) and Public Records Advisory Council (PRAC); and
(6) details on what bodies will replace the EAC and PRAC, including plans for appointments, remuneration, and public information about those bodies.’.
This is again one of those government bills where there is a vacuum. It is not clear what the replacements are and how it will work, and in that circumstance that is why we have the reasoned amendment to indicate the need to deal with a lot of these key matters.
In relation to the Public Records Advisory Council, this is a body that has been in existence since 1973. It is a body that was established by then Premier Dick Hamer and his government. It is a body that has any illustrious history. It is chaired by a former Labor MP. It has got people of great merit and character and knowledge on it – people who have got librarian knowledge, knowledge as archivists, knowledge as historians and knowledge of a range of different points and groups. It is a very significant body, and it has played a very significant role in protecting public records in this state.
We are concerned that the state government is seeking to abolish the Public Records Advisory Council without a proper replacement – without a replacement that has the standing of legislation or the standing of a strong, clear position and an ability to influence government policy. We think it is detrimental step, and it is not just us that thinks that. I have consulted very widely and, for example, History Monash has emailed to stay they strongly support the position to prevent the proposed abolition of the Public Records Advisory Council. So our textual amendment will be directly dealing with this matter. It will seek to stop this process – to protect the Public Records Advisory Council and to ensure that it remains in place. I hasten to add I do not believe that people on that council are actually paid. I think it is a very frugal body, and there is just no clarity as to why the government would want to kill that body.
The Accountability Roundtable has written to me, and the former Victorian Auditor-General’s Office CEO and Deputy Auditor-General Peter Frost said:
The keeping of comprehensive, accurate records is a key constituent element of good governance. Without it, government and bureaucracies will be free to rewrite history.
The Accountability Roundtable strongly supports the safeguards and protections and retention of state records. They believe it is a foundation for the investigative work of state integrity and oversight bodies like the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, the IBAC and the Ombudsman’s office:
We also support reform of the status of the Public Records Office Victoria … in particular to give it statutory authority equal to the other Victorian integrity bodies … This would bring it into line with the … equivalent Federal body, the National Archives of Australia under the Archives Act 1983.
So they have a very sensible agenda going forward, and that is something that is persuasive to me.
As I say, I have heard from History Monash and other groups. The Royal Historical Society of Victoria has been very clear about the importance it sees in the protection of the Public Records Advisory Council. Others have too. I just think it is very unclear what the state government is actually trying to achieve by ruining a very effective and respected oversight body. People have said:
Abolishing a legislated advisory council … puts PROV [Public Record Office Victoria] at odds with the vast majority of Australian and New Zealand state and national archives, which continue to operate with boards, committees or councils all established under their legislation …
That is what the background paper prepared by the Public Records Advisory Council stated in March. The council said its abolition would put the Public Record Office Victoria at odds with other cultural institutions, including the state library and so forth, and the Age reported:
Indigenous cultural records, such as maps of Country drawn by European linguists and ethnographers in the 1800s after speaking to elders …
These documents are expected to pay key roles in a number of forthcoming points.
The Australian Society of Archivists president Nicola Laurent, who I met with, said:
… this was why Victoria’s public records office needed a legislated oversight body.
“We have seen through royal commissions and the recent Yoorrook commission the difficulty even commissions can have in accessing required records for truth telling,” Laurent said. “Without a legislated council, there is [also] no guarantee that Public Record Office Victoria and the minister will have an ongoing model of consultation.”
So this I think is a very important set of points that have been made, and this is right across the whole librarian community; the archivists and the historical groups are all absolutely outraged that the government is seeking to abolish this body with no clarity of replacement. This will leave the government in a position to destroy documents without the proper oversight. The Age produced a very sensible editorial. They say Labor’s plan is bad for transparency and they talk about the scale of the Public Record Office; it is a very significant body. They talk about the Public Records Advisory Council, the 10-person council that scrutinises the record office activities and provides advice to the responsible minister. The decision has drawn criticism – this decision to abolish it – from the Australian Historical Association. The Australian Society of Archivists have publicly backed the role of the legislative advisory body.
I do not think Gabrielle Williams had much to say that was constructive, and I make the point here that the government has attacked the support for history on a wide front: last year’s abolition of funding to the Public Record Office for local history grants and competitions and the funding to the Royal Historical Society of Victoria, funding that had been there in both cases since the 1990s when Rob Maclellan and Jeff Kennett introduced it. It was just outrageous. The government has restored that funding, under direct pressure, for one year. I think many people are very, very concerned now as to what will happen with the funding in this financial year coming forward. If the government is going to cut funding to zero, as it sought to do, I think many people would be very concerned. The Royal Historical Society runs on very little money, and the small grant money that was provided to support awards and local historical society projects was very modest. The idea that that could be cut to zero is I think a direct attack on history, our history as a community and all layers of that history, early and more recent. I think the government has made a major mistake with that approach.
But let me be clear – I am conscious that we are needing to be expeditious – there are concerns with this bill. We do not see the replacement for a number of those other bodies, and there is no clarity on the way forward for them. For that reason we are moving the reasoned amendment. In the case of the textual amendment, it will amend the bill to protect the Public Records Advisory Council, and I will say more about that in committee.
Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (17:43): I stand to speak in support of the Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024. As we know, on 20 September 2023 the Labor government released a landmark package to boost housing supply and affordability in Victoria, representing the largest scale planning and housing reform in Victoria in generations. Victoria’s Housing Statement: The Decade Ahead 2024–2034 was developed to account for the fact that Victoria is the fastest growing state in Australia, with our population set to hit 10.3 million by 2051. This bill is the first step in our establishment of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria. The amendments proposed to the Estate Agents Act 1980 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 will allow government to contemporise the uses of the Victorian Property Fund and the Residential Tenancies Fund (RTF) to support alternative dispute resolution services, including Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria. These amendments will ensure that funds can be used to facilitate a fairer rental market for renters, industry professionals and rental providers through a contemporary, responsive, faster and cheaper dispute resolution service.
The Victorian Property Fund is a trust fund established under the Estate Agents Act 1980 and administered by Consumer Affairs Victoria. The fund receives income from several sources, including licence fees paid by estate agents and conveyancers, any fines and penalties payable under the Estate Agents Act 1980 and the Conveyancers Act 2006 and interest on estate agents’ and conveyancers’ trust accounts and investment income. Currently CAV administers grants and compensation claims from the Victorian Property Fund, including compensation for individuals and corporations where an estate agent, conveyancer or the representative has misused or misappropriated trust money or property. The Residential Tenancies Fund receives income from payment of penalties and fees under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, transfer of surplus funds from investment income earned via the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority or any gifts, donations or bequests of money made to the fund.
The RTF is currently used to fund the administration of the act and costs relating to residential tenancy matters at VCAT. Under the legislation the funds were specifically established to fund the administration of the legislation. These changes will contemporise the ways in which government uses these funds to allow us to continue to administrate the legislation through alternative dispute resolution services. This change will also enable the funds to be used to resource organisations that deliver critical advocacy and assistance to consumers in relation to housing and property issues under the act. This includes funding for the financial counselling program administered by CAV, which alleviates the impacts of economic abuse and financial hardship and helps Victorians manage debts, stabilise their financial situation, rebuild and get on with their lives. When Victorians are facing issues paying for those essential services, whether it is energy, telcos, toll roads, or whatever it might be, the services that financial counsellors and others provide are absolutely vital.
We know that housing is an essential service, and it is this side, this government, that has put in 130 reforms to make renting fairer. I could spend a lot of time going through those, but I simply do not have the time. But Victorians know that it is this side that is ensuring that those fair rental laws are in place. So with more people in Victoria and more renting than ever before, we could likely see an increase in the number of disputes. Often a rental dispute can just be one, as I mentioned before, of those essential services and cost-of-living pressures that they could be facing, so they need a quick resolution. It is not always the best outcome when renters and industry professionals end up at VCAT, especially when it comes to straightforward disputes. Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria will provide a one-stop shop for renters, agents and landlords to resolve tenancy disputes over rent, damages, repairs and bonds. It will be a clear pathway to settle issues in a faster, fairer and cheaper way, freeing up VCAT for more serious or complicated matters.
The bill will also see the discontinuation of the Estate Agents Council, the EAC, and the Public Records Advisory Council, the PRAC. As we are constantly reviewing and modernising the ways in which we consult with stakeholders, this decision was made by government last year in recognition of the need for flexible consultation with a broader group of stakeholders, including First Nations people.
The final thing I would like to touch on is the Sex Work Regulation Fund closure. As the Sex Work Regulation Fund was established as a trust account to support the operation of the previous sex work licensing and registration scheme, following the full decriminalisation of sex work on 1 December 2023 it is fiscally prudent for the government to make the administrative change to close the fund, given it no longer serves the required purpose. It is the final administrative step in our decriminalisation of sex work to ensure that sex workers have access to the same rights as any other Victorian employee, regardless of who they work for – themselves, a small employer or a large company.
Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (17:48): This bill establishes the funding for the government’s new rental dispute resolution body. My colleagues have already spoken to the bill in the other place. I will just add a few more remarks.
As the rental crisis has continued to get worse, the Greens and renters across the state have been pressuring Labor to fix these issues. Given the current dispute system is underfunded, has a backlog that now stretches out to years and adversely affects thousands of renters, a new body is good news. However, this bill only establishes the funding stream to a body about which we have little information, so I will ask a number of questions during the committee stage to get as much information as we can. I will also note that the bill does not address the substantive problems that renters face. Until the government is willing to tackle the power imbalance between renters and landlords and put controls in place to ban unlimited rent rises and no-grounds evictions, then renters will continue to live with unfair arrangements that cause stress, fear and distress.
Moving to the part of the bill that aims to reduce the public’s right to access government information, I am circulating today amendments in Mr Puglielli’s name. Could I ask that those please be circulated now.
Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.
Katherine COPSEY: These amendments uphold the public’s right to access government information. The Greens do not support the government’s move to abolish the Public Records Advisory Council. As has been canvassed in debate so far, that council provides formal oversight and accountability of our Public Record Office Victoria, and it plays a crucial role safeguarding the public’s right to access government records and information. Its expertise and oversight are essential in upholding the principles of open governance and preserving the integrity of our democracy, which needs more transparency and oversight, not less.
Abolishing a legislated advisory council would, as has been noted in debate, also put our public record office at odds with the vast majority of Australian and New Zealand state and national archives, which continue to operate with boards, committees or councils that are all established under their legislation. That is the purpose of our amendments, which I understand are similar – in fact identical – to the substantive amendment that has been circulated by the Liberals. I commend those amendments to the house. I will leave my comments there and resume with some questions in committee.
Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:51): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024 with some very brief remarks. I am all for any innovation, modification or reform that will make administration more efficient, fairer and faster, but with Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria it is simply not clear how it is going to work and how it is going to be resourced. We know how it might be funded, but we do not know what funding it will actually require. We know it winds up the Estate Agents Council and the Public Records Advisory Council, but the industry are very uncertain how industry consultation will occur thereafter. There is no legislated replacement. Not that this would be covered in the bill itself; perhaps we can cover it in committee. But without that detail you would presume there has not been any analysis of how many cases it can address in and of itself versus VCAT, whether it will be cheaper to run than the equivalent in VCAT, whether it will be more productive than the present system and whether it will be better at balancing the rights of tenants and landlords. They are my brief remarks. I also commend the amendments to the house.
Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:52): Thirty per cent of Victorians are renters. It is higher amongst low-income households and higher amongst those under the age of 35. With declining rates of home ownership, people are renting for longer. We see growth in renting even in higher income groups. More older people have less choice about whether they want to rent. The rental market is getting tighter and tighter. These conditions in the housing market are creating a power imbalance between landlords and tenants, and renters are bearing the brunt. In these circumstances Labor stands up for renters.
The housing statement released in September last year built on the 130 reforms we had already put in place to make renting fairer. That housing statement signalled further reforms like restricting rent increases between successive fixed-term rentals, banning all types of rental bidding, introducing a portable rental bond scheme, extending notice for rent increases and notice to vacate to 90 days, introducing mandatory training and licensing for real estate agents, protecting renters’ data and personal information, introducing a rental stress support package and importantly – this is what this bill is about – establishing Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria, because we know that when there are disputes between landlords and renters, renters need a place to go to help them resolve those disputes.
There have been issues with the way VCAT and the VCAT rental list have been operating. This bill, through the mechanisms and the changes to the Victorian Property Fund – the trust fund established under the Estate Agents Act 1980 – and the Residential Tenancies Fund, will assist in the establishment of that new body. It will help resolve these disputes and be one of the important mechanisms we have put in place to help renters in the Victorian rental market. These are incredibly important reforms, and we strongly support them.
Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (17:54): I rise to speak on the Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024. I would like to start by thanking my colleague Mr Tim McCurdy for his work on the bill. Indeed I joined him in the briefing on the bill. This comes out of the government’s housing statement, which is a part of their grand plan to fix housing – which is failing every day – and their hopes to slash the VCAT backlog. I am all for an approved dispute resolution process and the fast-tracking of dispute resolution, but this bill is big on ideas and very short on detail. I asked a number of questions, in particular: would landlords be able to go through this body? After a while I was told yes, which is good. It is good to have that two-way dispute resolution. But I have also asked the Minister for Housing in this place – and she could not quite answer the question: would this dispute resolution process also apply to, and would you be able to have disputes resolved against, the state’s biggest and probably worst landlord, which is the government. If we are going to create bodies like this, I think it is only fair that it also applies to the state’s biggest landlord, which is the government and public housing. I am looking forward to the amendment which gets rid of the government’s sneaky attempt to abolish the Public Records Advisory Council. They seem to be doing that a lot with these kinds of bills, and we know there will be another one coming up as well.
This is part of the government’s housing statement. I want to talk about that, because I tuned in to lower house question time today, and my ears pricked when the Minister for Planning actually mentioned me. She said that supply is the challenge we are facing and ‘we are pulling every lever’ to deal with that challenge. In attempting to criticise the opposition she quoted from my maiden speech, which I am really glad that she read, specifically where I said:
… it is immoral that large sections of our inner cities, flush with good transport, schools, health care and other infrastructure, remain almost flat, with obsolete overlays denying young Victorians a chance to buy their first home where they want to live …
which is a true statement and one I stand by.
Getting into the housing market for me and my generation has been made much harder by the nimby actions of this government, in which the member for Carrum has played a part. They have all talked about the housing statement and how they are all of a sudden yimbys and want to drive new housing regardless of what locals want, but I reckon it is an admission-of-failure statement. It is that side of the chamber that has made housing affordability worse for my generation. The biggest nimbys of them all are those on the other side of the chamber in the Labor Party, led by head nimby the former member for Richmond Richard Wynne – cheered on by the Age – who overturned many of the gains that were made in the housing space under the Liberals and Nationals. Richard Wynne’s reformed residential zones in 2015 undid the work of the previous Liberal government. You have got all these Labor MPs with all their talking points about how they are the ones that are pro housing supply and how they want to get more supply into the market –
Michael Galea interjected.
Evan MULHOLLAND: Well, I have kept the receipts, Mr Galea, and I hope the member for Carrum is watching, given she is so interested in my statements on this. Plan Melbourne in 2013 – a great, visionary document by my colleague Matthew Guy, who had in place activity zones for future growth where we could have density – had Preston as an activity centre. That was overturned by Richard Wynne. Now it re-emerges, a decade later, in the housing statement as a zone for future development as an activity centre. If you want a reason why we are in a housing crisis, look in a mirror. This minister is the one who intervened in the Preston Market decision. They basically picked up and copied the Liberal Party’s policy on it. So the minister does actually make decisions to restrict supply in Labor seats – exactly what she accuses my side of the house of doing. She even advocated against planning development in her own seat in regard to the Cove planning scheme amendment by Kingston City Council.
I have actually got a letter on this. She says:
The proposed developments include two ten storey residential towers and one three storey residential development, with a total of 236 dwellings.
She goes on to say that:
… the scale, scope and density of the proposed developments is entirely out of context with, and will very likely have negative impacts on, the local amenity and neighbourhood character –
which goes completely against what she is saying at the moment.
In a Facebook post from 7 November 2014, the then Labor candidate for Carrum, Sonya Kilkenny, said:
An Andrews Labor Government will review the botched planning zones imposed on councils and allow communities to have their say.
The Napthine Government has distorted growth and planning by forcing intensive high-rise development … Under Labor’s plan, new planning zones will be reviewed with a full report tabled in Parliament. The review will examine:
• The Napthine Government’s consultation process
…
• Departmental advice on zone application and what weight is given to heritage, local character and the housing needs of the state
• The impact of the zone changes on our suburbs
• Alternative ways to meet our housing needs
• How the zones can better fit within the framework outlined in Plan Melbourne …
This Minister for Planning actually talked about how the status quo is not an option. Well, you have been in government for the last decade, and you are – the Labor Party is – responsible for the status quo and responsible for the housing crisis, and I will not let the Labor government forget it.
Richard Wynne said:
Our suburbs have a unique character that’s loved and valued by their residents. It’s important that we preserve what makes our suburbs great places to live, such as our heritage …
He said:
The Government’s reforms protect the low scale and open character of Victoria’s suburbs by strengthening mandatory height controls.
He said it was a priority for the government to:
Provide councils, the community and … industry with an opportunity to be heard …
which is the exact opposite of what they are doing at the moment. A decade after they came to government, they are going against what this government has done. This government, the biggest nimby government you have ever seen, is now going against what they previously said.
The Liberals and Nationals approved more precinct structure plans in four years than that side of the house approved in 10 years, putting significant downward pressure on housing prices. They are locking up PSPs; they are not approving any more PSPs.
We get this accusation from the Minister for Planning that we are protecting our own seats, we just want density in our seats and that we are being political over this. Richard Wynne implemented mandatory height limits between four and 10 storeys in Brunswick – Brunswick, flush with good public transport, health and amenity, overturning our vision to develop Brunswick. Only two years later, Richard Wynne agreed with the planning panel’s decision to reject Moreland council’s bid to impose strict limits for building heights across Sydney Road, Lygon Street and Nicholson Street, instead putting in place discretionary height limits.
Labor are not the only nimbys in this place. Then Moreland mayor Samantha Ratnam said:
The state government seems to be giving in to what developers ask for rather than what the community is asking for.
So do not let me hear the Greens talking about housing affordability.
Also in Brunswick, under the Liberal government, the Age stated:
The owners of two terrace houses in Laura Street, Brunswick, have proposed knocking them over and replacing them with 10 apartments.
Richard Wynne led a campaign, cheered on by the Age and a few grey-haired locals – the same people this government believes should not have a say. There was Brunswick as well. We had then Moreland councillor Lambros Tapinos blasting the Liberals for improving development and density in Brunswick. It is weird because he was all against it then. He would get on the phone to Clay Lucas at the Age and be in a photo with all these grey-haired locals about how terrible Matthew Guy was. He is mute on Labor’s plan to take over his council’s planning controls – completely mute. I wonder why. That is probably because, as I have heard from many Labor councillors in the north, they are not actually allowed to speak out against this state government or they get a phone call to come into head office where they get told, ‘Your membership is about to be ripped up if you ever criticise us again.’ I know that happens because I have been told by a number of Labor councillors. It is a good opportunity to remind Victorians that when you are voting for a local government in October, if the person is a Labor Party member, it is the Labor Party first and not the community, because they will rip up their membership and make threats if councillors speak out against this disgraceful government.
In 2017 Richard Wynne dramatically intervened just days before a tribunal hearing to block a $350 million apartment development in Fitzroy North and amended a 12-storey proposal for 8500 square metres on the Gasworks site on Queens Parade, which featured 135 fewer apartments. So when you see, as I do, lines 50 metres long to get into inspections in Fitzroy and Brunswick, know that it is Labor and the Greens fault that you cannot find a place to rent, that you cannot find a place to put a roof over your head. We had Richard Wynne and we had the Labor government, led by multiple Labor candidates, now Labor members, all screaming ‘Overdevelopment!’ and ‘Communities can’t have a say!’ You are literally responsible for the housing crisis. We had a housing affordability unit in the department of planning scrapped by Labor. You literally cannot believe these people. They put the handbrake on supply in Victoria in inner, middle and growth suburbs. The Premier, the planning minister and the Labor Party are driving the fire truck to come put out the fire that they started when it comes to housing affordability in this state. That lot want to pretend they are on the side of young Victorians and young families trying to get into the housing market. Well, I will not let you and this government forget that all this Labor government have done is hurt young Victorians and create this housing crisis.
Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (18:06): In the time I have got left I would also like to rise to contribute to the Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024. I will quickly say part of this bill is the creation of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria. The body will be set up directly using Victorian public funds and the Residential Tenancies Fund. The purpose is to solve disputes in relation to different laws such as in the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and the Sale of Land Act 1962, yet this bill essentially treats the symptoms of Victoria’s rental crisis without treating the cause of Victoria’s rental issues. It does not quite address the supply issue, if I may suggest. The response of implementing Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria is crucial and comes at a time when we are struggling with a backlog of cases within the residential tenancies list of VCAT.
I will cut it short, but in closing, there are concerns regarding the enforcement and punitive powers of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria in that it is keeping with a perceived lack of support for landlords, real estate agents and property management. The Real Estate Institute of Victoria has voiced its reservations and cites the insufficient detail in relation to this bill. There is also a question regarding the dissolution of the Estate Agents Council without a proper alternative. The omission raised a red flag regarding the need for a balanced approach and to consider the interests of all stakeholders. Nevertheless, the strength of the bill is its productive approach to addressing the backlog of cases in the residential tenancies list of VCAT. But I note that it does lack clarity surrounding the original framework of the residential dispute resolutions.
The establishment of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria does appear to be an opportunity to foster harmonious relations between tenants and landlords through a streamlined process that could enhance the effectiveness of our legal system. But the bill mainly focuses on renters, leaving landlords and real estate agents feeling marginalised and unsupported, and it is not quite the approach to cater to all parties. So in relation to that, I do support the amendment that Mr Davis has put forward, a reasonable textual amendment which will assist in relation to covering all the deficiencies in relation to the bill. In closing, I support the bill and recommend the amendment put forward by Mr Davis.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (13): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (18:18)
David DAVIS: I just thought it would be worthwhile to make sure that people understand what we are seeking to achieve with an amendment here. This is an amendment that will be tested by clause 1. It is the amendment I referred to in the second-reading speech, and it is widely understood, I think, now publicly. It is an amendment that seeks to preserve and protect the Public Records Advisory Council. It is a council that has been in existence since 1973, under a Dick Hamer government act, and it is an important advisory council replicated in different forms around the country, but in each jurisdiction there is some advisory council that has legislative backing to enable it to do the work of protecting records, guiding the protection of records, guiding archival work and guiding the work of, in this case, digitisation and other key steps. As I have outlined publicly and in the second-reading debate, the opposition was deeply distressed by the government’s decision to bring forward a bill to abolish the Public Records Advisory Council without any replacement or any sensible way forward. It is a cheap committee. I do not believe it is an expensive council. It is a broad council. It has got archivists, it has got librarians and it has got people with expertise in digitisation. It is chaired by Judy Maddigan, I might say, a former Labor member for Essendon and a former Speaker, and there are other luminaries on that council. We are determined to preserve it.
We think that it is a council that actually helps protect public records. We think that leaving government without guidance on public records is deeply concerning. Governments, for a range of reasons – either sinister, by happenstance or by error – can see the destruction of important public records that are required long, long into the future. We strongly support the work of the Public Record Office Victoria, and this committee provides guidance to the public record office, and for that reason alone it is sufficient to protect the council and ensure that it is preserved. These amendments that we have here are tested, as I say, by clause 1, but they are intended to preserve the Public Records Advisory Council in its current form, with its current strength. It is true, it is tested, it has worked very effectively since 1973, and we do not believe it should be abolished.
A number of important organisations, which I outlined in the second-reading debate, have indicated their strong support. I should indicate the support of the Age, which has been fabulous on this matter. The Age, I think, has editorialised very directly about these matters, saying the Public Records Advisory Council should be preserved.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, can I just get you to formally move your amendments 1 and 2.
David DAVIS: I move:
1. Clause 1, page 2, lines 7 to 9, omit all words and expressions on these lines.
2. Clause 1, page 2, line 10, omit “(e)” and insert “(d)”.
As circulated, my amendments 1 and 2 amend clause 1.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps Ms Copsey might like to explain – the Greens have an identical set of amendments.
Katherine COPSEY: I will just state that the effect of the amendments I have circulated, which are in Mr Puglielli’s name, is identical to those that have been moved by the opposition, and the effect of those is to retain the Public Records Advisory Council. It is an important body. It is important in terms of the advocacy that has been shown. I think this whole debate has actually been very useful in demonstrating the utility of and continued support for the advisory council and the important role it plays. I think it has been very useful for Parliament to have the opportunity, actually, to canvass its important role, and I am pleased that we seem to have a set of amendments that will gain support across the chamber today to ensure that it is retained. I also have a number of questions that I seek to ask on clause 1.
Minister, what power will Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria (RDRV) have to make and enforce orders?
Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is very important for this new body that we are still considering the range of options to make agreements reached in a conciliation process. We are exploring the powers and seeing what other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms there are in other jurisdictions and the options to identify what is most appropriate and most efficient.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, will Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria be a judicial body or a mediation body, or will it be some combination of both?
Enver ERDOGAN: We are being clear that it will be an alternative dispute resolution body. When you talk about it, it is not intended to be a tribunal or court, as they already exist, and it is our goal to see these matters resolved as quickly as possible without the need to go to a tribunal.
Katherine COPSEY: How will the role of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria differ from Dispute Settlement Centre of Victoria, the existing body?
Enver ERDOGAN: It is important to make the distinction that the Dispute Settlement Centre of Victoria is not established under any Victorian legislation. It is also important to understand that the RDRV will also offer conciliation, which is not a feature of the current Dispute Settlement Centre of Victoria. There will be considerable differences, but I think the fact that it will be a legislative body is probably the most substantial.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, how will distinctions be made between matters that do or do not require VCAT’s involvement? How is that going to be determined? Will it just be a referral process from Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria, or will there be specific kinds of disputes that are able to bypass this new body and go straight to VCAT?
Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is important to understand that we envisage this body will complement the work of VCAT and not replace VCAT. I think it is clear that there will still be a role for tribunals to consider matters of importance. In particular, matters where there are urgent repairs and orders of possession of that nature will still be within the tribunal. Obviously once we release the funds I think there will be an opportunity for the minister’s office to work with VCAT and see if there might be some processes that are a better approach for this dispute resolution mechanism.
Katherine COPSEY: If I could just tease that out a little more, Minister, my first question was around really the enforcement powers of this new body. So in some cases where an urgent enforcement is required, therefore VCAT may still end up being the appropriate place for the dispute to go.
Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, what will happen if parties fail to find a resolution at Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria?
Enver ERDOGAN: I think in the final design we are exploring where that could take people, but this is, as I said, not meant to replace any of the existing tribunal or court options, and that will still be an option for those parties that partake. But the goal is really to have a binding agreement in this forum which is quicker and more efficient.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, how are you going to ensure that disputes concerning unreasonable rent increases will be dealt with fairly, given there is no legislation that makes unlimited and disproportionate rent rises illegal?
Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is a very good question. Consumer Affairs Victoria already has existing guidelines under which unreasonable rent increases are determined, and Victorian renters can continue to request a review through that process.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, in the case of an unreasonable rent increase, do you see this new body providing people with an alternative outcome, or are they just going to end up back at consumer affairs?
Enver ERDOGAN: I will just seek some guidance. We are looking at ways we can integrate the existing CAV processes with the new body, and we are exploring how that can be done, understanding that the Consumer Affairs Victoria powers will continue to exist.
Katherine COPSEY: Will renters be permitted to have advocates and representatives from support services present during disputes being heard by the Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria service?
Enver ERDOGAN: In this regard a decision has not been made, but I do envisage that increased accessibility will avoid costs and the need to go to tribunal, so I do envisage that there will be support mechanisms for renters and advocates.
Katherine COPSEY: Do you have an idea of what establishing and operating Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria will cost? Will the service have recurrent yearly operational funding? In order to accommodate that – perhaps we will get some clarity next week – will recurrent funding for VCAT or consumer affairs be reduced, and if so, by how much?
Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.
Lee TARLAMIS: I move:
That the meal break scheduled for this date, pursuant to standing order 4.01(3), be suspended.
Motion agreed to.
Enver ERDOGAN: The costings for RDRV are still being worked through, and obviously they will be dependent on the finalisation of the service design and the scope of it. Obviously, we envisage a system whose goal is to be more efficient, to be cheaper and definitely to be much quicker than what exists at the moment. In terms of funding for VCAT, that will be determined through the normal channels that currently exist, and I do not envisage any change in that process.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, what portion of VCAT and consumer affairs functions does the government expect RDRV to replace?
Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is important to understand that RDRV is not there to replace VCAT, it is to complement VCAT. In terms of the workload differences or the costing differences, I think once we have the final design we will have a better picture, but the goal is not to replace VCAT, it is to complement it. Many disputes in this area are resolved outside VCAT already, and some of them may be captured by RDRV once it is finalised.
Katherine COPSEY: If I can ask that one again slightly differently, Minister, I suppose I am hoping to get some indication if you have any projection or understanding of how many matters might not need to go to those other bodies, so the extent to which RDRV might take away from the workload of VCAT and CAV.
Enver ERDOGAN: I will just seek some advice. I think it is difficult to answer that question when we do not have the final scope of the design of RDRV, but also it may even generate more people enforcing their rights, because we know many people through the VCAT process do not pursue their rights for a number of reasons. That is why it is difficult to assess the unmet demand that exists.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, how many staff will RDRV have, and how does this compare to consumer affairs, VCAT and dispute settlement Victoria respectively?
Enver ERDOGAN: This is still being worked through and is dependent on the final service design.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, what differences will there be in terms of the skills, experience and training required of RDRV staff, especially those who are directly involved in mediation or in making decisions in relation to disputes – so decision-making power – and how will this compare to the current arrangements as administered by VCAT and the requirements for staffing of VCAT?
Enver ERDOGAN: What RDRV will not be is a tribunal, but in terms of the final skill set required for these roles, it will be depending on the final design.
Katherine COPSEY: What standards or requirements, Minister, will change or be dropped in order to make this service faster, fairer and cheaper, as described in the Victorian government housing statement?
Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is important to understand that RDRV will provide an alternative for tenants, rental providers and industry professionals to resolve their disputes. We know that VCAT or legal processes can be timely and significantly costly, and that is what RDRV will not be, and so it is envisaged that we will be able to avoid that process. In terms of the final design, it will be legislated and brought before the house in due course. If today’s bill is passed, we will have some of that detail.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, what kind of service standards or processing deadlines will this new entity be held to in relation to hearing disputes, and what volume of cases does RDRV expect to hear – matters or disputes?
Enver ERDOGAN: I think that is a matter that will be considered as part of the service design. Our goal is to have a quicker, more efficient system.
Katherine COPSEY: This is my final question. Minister, what other operational differences will it have in comparison with existing or equivalent services currently provided by VCAT, Consumer Affairs Victoria and Dispute Settlement Victoria?
Enver ERDOGAN: The service is intended to complement existing services such as CAV and VCAT, but this is all subject to the finalisation of the service design, and upon the release of these funds, we will be able to do that work and introduce legislation with the final design in the future.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions, Minister, do you want to respond to the amendments?
Enver ERDOGAN: I do just want to say a few words in relation to Mr Davis’s remarks, and I thank him for his contribution and for Ms Copsey’s identical amendments that have been moved today. I think it is important to understand that as a government we value the role of the Public Records Advisory Council, and they do important work. I know the minister’s office has been in discussions with them. But I think there is always a need and as a government we always look for opportunities to review and modernise the way our stakeholder consultations take place. I think that was the intended purpose. I might just leave it there in that regard, but I understand the reason why there have been amendments moved by both the opposition and the Greens.
Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 (18:37)
David DAVIS: I move:
3. Clause 20, lines 11 and 12, omit all words and expressions on these lines.
4. Clause 20, line 13, omit “(b)” and insert “(a)”.
5. Clause 20, line 15, omit “(c)” and insert “(b)”.
Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 negatived.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Long title (18:39)
David DAVIS: I move:
8. Long title, after “Public Records Act 1973” omit “to abolish the Public Records Advisory Council”.
Amendment agreed to; amended long title agreed to.
Reported to house with amendments, including amended long title.
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
That the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill with amendment.