Tuesday, 13 August 2024

Housing

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:10): (606) My question is for the Minister for Housing. Recent reports in the Age confirmed that your government has recently signed a $100 million contract with John Holland for the demolition of public housing towers in North Melbourne and Flemington. This is despite hundreds of residents still living in these homes and growing community opposition to your plans to demolish and privatise these estates. Recently a group of residents from Flemington and North Melbourne wrote to you and said:

The impact of relocation extends far beyond housing. These high-rise buildings are not just structures; they are the heart of our lives where we have forged friendships, built support networks, and cultivated a sense of belonging. Moving us from this community will sever these vital connections, leaving families isolated and vulnerable, especially our elderly who already struggle with language barriers and rely heavily on local community support.

Your government has previously used demolition contracts to evict residents and drag them through VCAT to force from their homes. Minister, is Labor again planning to use demolition contracts to begin mass evictions of residents at these public housing sites so that you can privatise them?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:11): Dr Ratnam, thank you, yet again, for another question on the towers redevelopment sites in tranche 1 of the work that we are doing. I would just like to, yet again, invite you to a briefing on social housing and what the Big Housing Build is delivering and what the housing statement is delivering, because again, Dr Ratnam, you have failed to take up all of my constant invitations to you for –

Samantha Ratnam: Where’s the invitation? Send me an email.

Harriet SHING: Ask, Dr Ratnam, and ye shall receive. I would in fact invite you, Dr Ratnam, to go to some of the correspondence that I have sent back to you inviting you expressly to take up an offer of a briefing. I have reiterated that invitation several times in this place. I have reiterated it publicly. Dr Ratnam, if your intestinal fortitude amounts to the sort of gravitas that you would seek to have it represent in the broader world, you might seek to actually ask for the information that you say is so important to you that it cannot wait.

Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, President, my question was not about a briefing, it was about demolition contracts. It is a point of order on the relevance of the minister’s response to the precise question that I asked.

The PRESIDENT: I will uphold the point of order and call the minister to the question.

Harriet SHING: Thank you. Dr Ratnam, I look forward to being heard without interjection, because it was on that basis that I was giving you the further information. At the heart of the work that we are doing on the high-rise relocation programs is tenant voice. The work that we are doing as part of the resident- and community-first approach is about household relocations that are aimed to develop a really deep understanding of each renter’s circumstances – their aspirations and the needs that they have for specific configurations in the housing that will meet their needs and the social supports that are also of crucial importance, which you have also identified in the extensive preamble to your question. Connecting people with pride of place is of essential importance in recognising not only the impact of the places that people have called home for generations but also what the impact of relocations will look like.

Homes Victoria has had individual meetings with 98 per cent of the 484 households that were residing at the North Melbourne and Flemington towers. As of 9 August, 96 per cent of all households have submitted a housing application to outline what their housing needs are, and 70 per cent of those households have expressed a preference to remain within their community and the immediate area. This is where the neighbourhood approach is of especial importance, and again, I am really happy to brief you on that process. As of 3 August 2024, 124 households have moved, with a further 106 households being matched to an alternative property or having accepted a property that meets their household eligibility and need requirements. Eighty-eight households have relocated into the new homes in the immediate area at Victoria Street, Flemington, managed by Community Housing Limited.

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:14): Thank you for your response, Minister. I think it is really important that we ask and furnish these questions in public on behalf of the thousands of residents your plans for demolition and privatisation impact, and I will continue to ask through this chamber questions that are matters of public importance. Residents from these towers have made it abundantly clear that they do not want the demolition plans to proceed without meaningful consultation and a right to return to public housing at these sites. Recently a resident said:

We were initially assured that relocation would consider our needs and preferences, including moving with family and friends. However, recent interactions with relocation officers have contradicted these assurances, leaving us feeling coerced into accepting inadequate housing offers.

This is simply unacceptable behaviour by the government, Minister. Minister, will you guarantee that no resident will be forcibly evicted from their public home at Flemington and North Melbourne?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:15): Dr Ratnam, what a shame that you have not actually sought to provide details of these renters who you have just put on the record as feeling coerced to accept particular offers.

Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, President, I did mention in my main question that this was a letter that the minister had also received from residents.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. The minister is 10 seconds into her answer.

Harriet SHING: Yes, you have referred to multiple residents, Dr Ratnam. If you have got examples, bring them to me. When we do talk about the impact of a relocation on residents, we are dealing with and engaging with and respecting the views of residents about what their needs and their aspirations are, not just now but into the future. While we are talking about the feedback that we have had on the engagement with tower tenants, a renter at Windsor has said:

Thank you so much for today. I feel much calmer. I feel really heard.

Another renter at Albert Park said:

I came here ready to be angry because I didn’t know anything. You’ve really helped me. It really helped being able to have a one-on-one conversation.

A renter at Carlton said:

I wasn’t convinced about this, but you’ve convinced me you are genuine and care about renters.

A renter at Richmond said:

There are a lot of people worried about –

David Davis: On a point of order, President, the question, as I understood it, asked specifically about locations in her region – in the northern region. The minister is now talking about different locations in a different part of metropolitan Melbourne. It is not appropriate, and it is not responsive to the question.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The minister has got 6 seconds.

Harriet SHING: Thank you. The list goes on, and again –

Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, President, just on relevance, my question was precisely about North Melbourne and Flemington residents.

The PRESIDENT: I hate paraphrasing people, but I feel that the minister gave a response that was a global approach at the start, so I think the minister has been relevant to the question. She has got 2 seconds.

Harriet SHING: One of the things that we are trying to counter is the disinformation that you are distributing, Dr Ratnam. We will continue to do that.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, I ask you to perhaps later, in the quietness after question time, just re-look at this, because I think where a question is specific about certain locations, it is clearly not adequate for a minister to answer about entirely different places. I know you always say – and I understand why you say it – that you cannot direct a minister how to answer a question, but you can to the extent that you can tell a minister they cannot answer with an irrelevant detail a different question than the one that has been asked.

Harriet Shing: Further to the point of order, President, where I do talk about the renter-first approach, it is an approach which applies globally and universally, and the examples that I have given are illustrative of that approach in action. On that basis, the general has led to the specific.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, they are illustrative, but that actually confirms that they are not actually a precise answer about precise locations. That is the point; they are not the proper answer.

The PRESIDENT: I will commit to Mr Davis to give consideration to his point of order in general. I usually wait until the end of question time to say whether I think the minister acquitted the questions, and I think the minister did. But I am always open to points of order if people believe the minister did not. I will commit to Mr Davis to give consideration in general, rather than on this question, to his point of order in coming hours and days.