Tuesday, 10 September 2024

Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Enver Erdogan:

That the bill be now read a second time.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (16:35): This is the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024. I am pleased to rise and make a short and succinct contribution on this bill. The opposition, the Liberals and the Nationals, will not oppose the bill. The bill provides for standard forms to be used for part 4A site agreements, increasing transparency and allowing for more comparisons across the industry. This is a transparency bill. It is a very, very modest bill indeed. It almost looks like the government is desperate to have some legislative program with this particular bill coming through. I mean, they are all very worthy points.

Jaclyn Symes: What have you got against funerals?

David DAVIS: We are not opposing it. We are making contributions, but if you were thinking about substantive bills, this one probably would not register very much on the Richter scale. This bill will clearly define and tie the CPI that is referred to in the relevant act to Melbourne-based CPI and not any other ABS CPI measurement as used in rent calculations.

When it comes to funeral homes, they will be required to display price lists on their websites and in their premises. Who could object to that? I once was on an inquiry – I think the Family and Community Development Committee from recollection – that looked at funeral homes and the funeral industry more generally. We travelled the state, we looked at funeral homes and we met many in the industry, and by and large I think they are a pretty good industry. But transparency is always a good thing in these matters, and if people can see additional information on the website and on the wall in the funeral parlours, I think that is a good thing. I think we will put that on the record as a step forward – a modest step forward, but nonetheless a step forward. The bill will have limited impacts, though, on the operations of residential park operators and funeral home directors, due to the nature of industry associations already having formal guidelines and requirements similar to those in the proposed legislation. To give the industries their credit, their due, most of them have actually set up schemes not dissimilar to this and are by and large complying with that already, so I put on record the fact that by and large I think these groups are doing a pretty good job.

It is interesting though: if the government wants to help people in this area and in particular when it comes to residential tenancies, there are a lot of other things that are worthy that it could do. For example, at the moment the government has its proposed regulations, the Residential Tenancies and Residential Tenancies (Rooming House Standards) Amendment (Minimum Energy Efficiency and Safety Standards) Regulations 2024. I note the significance of these. They will actually put a very significant burden on landlords initially, which inevitably will flow directly through into higher rents and higher costs for renters. These regulations will mandate certain matters around repairs and replacement of equipment. One of the things we have noted is that the regulations will require that if you have got a gas appliance in a rental home you will not be able to replace it with another gas appliance; you will be forced to put in an electric appliance. Despite the government’s announcement yesterday, for example, that it would allow people to continue cooking with gas, that is actually not true. Not only has it banned new home connections but, importantly, in this residential tenancy area and under similar powers in this bill, it has actually laid out a set of changes that are going to be forced on the residential tenancy sector, which will add to costs very significantly.

It is interesting, when the Real Estate Institute of Victoria looked at this – and I have met with the Real Estate Institute of Victoria and talked to them about this – they made a number of points. They said:

The Victorian rental ecosystem is under immense pressure, with acute shortages of affordable rental stock as –

rental providers –

… are compelled to exit the market due to increasingly complex regulations and the rising costs of owning and maintaining an investment property in Victoria.

So I think the context of these things is actually important. Where there are layers and layers and layers of new regulation coming in, I think we have got to be very, very cautious. It said:

In effect, the proposed standards, if implemented within their intended timeline, will force –

retail rental providers –

… to appreciably raise rents to cover costs in an already constricted market. Additionally, it is likely to cause a sizeable cohort of current –

providers –

… to sell their investment properties due to incurred financial burden, an outcome that will destabilise an already volatile … market.

They went on to say:

According to the RIS released by the government, the main problems that were identified …

Financial impacts on renters from inefficient and more costly appliances,

Health impacts, impacts on renters of inadequate heating or cooling,

Impacts on renters’ mental health, productivity, and comfort levels, and

Environmental impacts from greater emissions caused by inefficient appliances.

In the context here, we are quite supportive of doing things that help with the environmental impacts, but these have got to be done in a sensible way that does not build an enormous cost. The REIV went on to say that whilst it:

… recognises the need for appropriate energy efficient minimum standards within rental properties, the immediacy of the costs and implementation explored in the RIS indicate that more consideration should be given to how to bring new minimum standards into effect more fairly and effectively.

It went on to point out:

Given the challenging nature of the proposed standards, forcing the financial and logistical capacities of the sector to implement them whilst navigating the current market conditions is likely to result in an accelerated reduction in available rental homes …

I think that is right. They also went on to say:

Notably, almost 90 per cent of renters live in properties supplied by the private … market, with a Parliament of Victoria inquiry demonstrating that 71 per cent of property investors … own a single investment property.

So the residential tenancies bill is fundamentally focused on regulating those investment properties. It went on to say:

The ongoing government approach of increasing regulation and onerous property taxation is actively discouraging “mum and dad” investors …

This I think is important to see, that we are layering more and more and more requirements. When you get to what it will mean in terms of compliance with the gas rules, I think it is going to be very, very difficult. I think the issue with hot-water systems is going to be difficult too. You have got a standard hot-water system in a rental property. It reaches the end of its days and it has got to be replaced. You cannot replace it with a gas one; you have got to replace it with an electricity one. That is going to be a significant cost. Then you get to heating, and I think this is going to be the biggest cost of all. You have got a very typical house in the suburbs – three, four bedrooms maybe – gas ducted, as so many houses in metropolitan Melbourne and country Victoria do have, and there would be five, maybe six, maybe seven ducting points that keep the bedrooms and corridors and the lounge and so forth in the house warm. When that gas appliance dies, the government’s proposal is that you will not be allowed to put a gas appliance in its place. You will only be allowed to put an electric appliance in its place. And that will mean that you can replace that six-point gas ducted heating – and people know how quickly and wonderfully you just flick it on and the house is warm in 15 minutes – with a single reverse-cycle air conditioner in the lounge. That is what is going to happen. You will see that it is going to be very difficult for so many renters because the lounge will be warm but the rest of the house will be ice cold, it will be chilly. The kids’ bedrooms will be like iceblocks. And up the other end of the house somebody will have a study which will now have no heating, unless they are going to put three or four or five of these reverse-cycle air conditioners in, in which case the huge energy drain is going to be very costly indeed.

This is one of the problems. Again, you have got all of this regulation applied again and again on residential tenancies, layer upon layer upon layer, cost upon cost upon cost, and then quite perverse effects are likely to occur with these situations. You are going to see a massive, massive impost on renters and cost to renters. Some of the figure work that I have seen – the Frontier Economics work and other work that has been done, genuinely independently of the government – is showing that in many cases the cost of upgrading these rental properties could exceed $30,000. Someone is going to have to pay for that. That will be clobbering hard on those mum-and-dad investors in the first instance, and then after that it will be passed through in the fullness of time to the renters. The last thing we need in Victoria is to jack up the price of rental properties. It is nuts. So we have got to think very, very carefully about the layers and layers of cost and imposition that we put on the residential tenancies that are part of our state.

I do not have a lot more to say about the bill because the bill itself is, as I say, a very unexceptional bill. There is not anyone who is going to oppose the bill, I do not believe, and I think the bill will be seen as a bill that does a tiny little bit for transparency but not very much at all. It is a bill that will be quietly waved through the chamber and not much heard of again.

Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:47): I rise today to speak on the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024, which the Greens will be supporting. This bill takes some important first steps to address the concerns that have been raised by the tens of thousands of older Victorians who live in land lease villages across Victoria. This is a rapidly growing industry with some dubious operators that are, frankly, taking advantage of people. It is vitally important that beyond the passage of this legislation more be done to equalise the power imbalance that currently exists between residents of these villages, who are often retirees with limited financial means, and site owners. The bill also strengthens consumer protections in the funeral industry to address concerns around pricing transparency and clarity.

Many community advocates have been pushing for years to see these changes, and I commend their work. We in the Greens share their support for standardised site agreements. This will make things clearer and easier for people looking to move into land lease villages. Until now there has been too much scope for complicated, non-standardised contracts to be used by site owners. These have seen residents feeling pressured to sign complex agreements which at times have been, frankly, misleading and unfair. The provisions for defining CPI in rent increases and improving transparency in precontractual disclosure will also make some minor improvements for residents, but they do not address some of the most egregious issues that have been raised. More needs to be done to address the exploitative and unfair fees that residents are facing. Again, many with finite financial resources cannot weather unreasonable increases that put their homes at risk. This is then made worse by the fact that their homes may only be sold with the consent of the landowner.

Victoria needs to come into line with South Australia and Queensland and introduce a registration system for land lease villages and a central record of site owners, along with more data on the location, size and types of these villages across the state. The Greens have long been calling for a retirement housing ombudsman, as the current provisions for dispute resolution are inadequate. At the moment individual residents, often without much money, must take disputes to VCAT and fight against often large organisations with their own legal counsel. This is just unfair and unjust. Residents should be able to access free, fair and binding decisions from a body that understands the complexities of these villages and provides equal standing to both parties.

The bill also seeks to improve consumer protections for customers of funeral businesses. This is in response to concerns around a lack of pricing transparency in the funeral industry raised by consumer advocates and investigated by CHOICE in 2019, for example. This then led to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission market study and report on funeral services in 2021, which found a number of issues with the funeral sector, including misleading consumers on pricing. These reports highlighted many examples of people finding it difficult to access or understand funeral pricing. Many issues were reported, including pricing that did not include all applicable fees or deals and discounts that were not available in their area, as well as services being advertised as local businesses even though they were part of a national company as well as excessive interest rates for late payments. This bill seeks to improve transparency when it comes to funeral costs, and this is welcome.

The Greens established a parliamentary inquiry into retirement housing way back in 2016 and it continues to be an important issue today that still needs further action. Many older Victorians are getting taken advantage of. We are pleased with these first steps and hope that with the report from the commissioner’s research project later this year that we will see further improvements to support the needs of residents of land lease villages. These are important first steps, as I said. We must now continue on this path. I commend this bill to the house.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:51): I rise to speak on the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024, and I am pleased to speak on it today. This bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 in relation to part 4A and to amend the Funerals Act 2006 in relation to funeral goods and services price lists and the coffin price lists and for other purposes. I want to go quickly over some of the formalities of the bill first and when it comes into operation. Clause 2(1) of the bill says that part 1 and section 6 come into operation on the day after the date on which the act receives royal assent. Subclauses (2) and (3) provide that the remaining provisions of the act come into operation on a day or days to be proclaimed and if the bill does not come into operation before 1 August 2025, it comes into operation on that day. It is really important for people to have the right information when they are making the big decisions. This bill includes a bunch of changes that make sure that Victorians know what they need to know when they are dealing with important life events like choosing a place to live or arranging a funeral for a loved one – two different topics but something we all have to deal with at one stage.

I will begin by talking about the better protections for people living in residential parks. The Allan Labor government is committed to helping people living in residential parks so that they can make smart choices about their housing. Residential parks are places where people often own small homes but rent the land. Residential parks which can be covered under part 4A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 are often advertised as affordable housing options, especially for seniors. In these parks people usually own a small home but they rent the land under it. These parks are seen as cheaper options for housing, and with the rising costs in the housing market more and more people are moving into these places. But there is a problem. The rules around these parks are not clear enough and people do not have enough protection. This has led to a big growth in the land lease industry.

As this part of the housing market gets bigger, it is important that the government makes sure that there are proper protections for people living in these parks. While councils attract things like caravans and mobile homes, there are not enough safeguards for those renting land in these parks. This bill aims to fix that. Advocacy groups and park residents have raised concerns that there is not enough transparency. Right now, park agreements do not have to follow a standard format, which makes it hard for residents to compare different agreements and to find what works best for them. These issues came up when the government reviewed the Retirement Villages Act 1986. We will do that by making changes to the Residential Tenancies Act which will give better protection to people living in these parks and make sure that everyone understands their rights.

These changes have come from the concerns and needs of the people living in these parks. The community often does not understand what they are agreeing to when they move into a park, like how much it is going to cost, how rent increases work or what fees and bonds they pay when they move in or out. They are the people who have told us that that needs to be fixed. Because of the growing number of people in these parks, the Minister for Consumer Affairs has asked the commissioner for residential tenancies to team up with the Consumer Policy Research Centre. They are going to review the sector and figure out what needs to change to protect people better.

But we know we need to act now and act now we will, and that is what we are doing. We are introducing things like standard contracts and clearer rules for how rent increases work and making sure people know everything they need to know before signing agreements. This will help people make better decisions when moving out of or into a residential park, and they will be able to compare agreements and find out what is right for them.

The bill will make some changes to part 4A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 to give people living in residential parks better protection. The bill will also expand the information that the site owners have to give before someone signs a site agreement. This includes basic things like the owner’s name and contact details as well as important financial details, such as the bond arrangements and any other fees they will need to pay when moving in or out. We know there is always more to be done in this space and in fact in the housing space in Victoria. That is why we have made the move on Victoria’s Housing Statement: The Decade Ahead 2024–2034, where we announced the creation of Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria, or RDRV. This new body will focus on helping people resolve disputes in the rental and housing space. We know that conflicts happen about rent increases, unclear contracts or issues with site owners. That is why we are working on building up the RDRV and looking into its role in helping residential park tenants.

It is important to think about all the different housing issues in one big picture. We do not want to create too many separate dispute resolution bodies that might overlap; instead we want to make sure we are taking a holistic approach to resolving these problems in a way that makes sense for everyone involved. As I say most weeks, that is why we consult widely before our legislation – not to create a haphazard approach but to make the best legislative framework and policy we can. That is why I am proud that we are a government that listens and consults in order to keep making legislation better.

I want to briefly touch on a topic that we will have to deal with at some stage, hopefully for our sakes not for a very long time, and that is retirement. One of the Allan Labor government’s main priorities in 2024 is to introduce a new bill which changes the Retirement Villages Act, and we will get this one done. These changes will come from what we have heard from residents, operators and others during public consultation – that important word: consultation. The government is reviewing all the feedback from the review of the Retirement Villages Act 1986, including what we learned from two rounds of public consultation on the draft of the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill. Retirement villages are in a great position to help seniors live well as they age by offering safe and secure housing that meets their care needs. They also provide social opportunities, access to recreational activities and other important services that support a good quality of life. But because of the different roles they play in the market, we need to get the approach right. Residents in retirement villages are usually older, while people living in part 4A parks include not only seniors but also other groups of vulnerable people. Many of these residents choose residential parks because other types of housing are either too expensive or unavailable.

Residential parks are regulated by the Residential Tenancies Act, RT act, which gives them the benefits of the government’s recent reforms to strengthen tenant protections. The RT act provides protections for residents at every stage of renting, including entering a site agreement, clear rules about what information has to be shared before signing an agreement and terms that cannot be included. During the tenancy, the act regulates things like rent, repairs, maintenance and when and how landlords can enter the property. When ending an agreement, there are rules about notice periods and how things should be handled. We will get the balance right, and I am looking forward to debating that bill in the future sittings.

This bill also addresses funerals, because the Allan Labor government is committed to making sure people know what they are paying for when they arrange a funeral. The reality is that it is the last thing many people want to deal with or have the mental capacity to deal with. When you are grieving, you do not want to have to deal with the cost of invoicing and budgeting. People have enough on their plates. For the past few years funeral pricing has been a big issue all across Australia. CHOICE, a consumer advocacy group I am sure you are well aware of, reported problems like unclear prices, hidden fees and confusion over who owns funeral companies. In 2021 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, or the ACCC, looked into competition and consumer issues in the funeral industry. They found that pricing is often unclear and services are bundled together in ways that limit people’s choices. This bill aims to fix that by making funeral homes in Victoria more transparent about their prices, just like in New South Wales and Queensland. It proposes changes to the Funerals Act 2006 so funeral homes will have to display a clear price for all their goods and services both on their website and at their business locations. They will also need to show a separate list of coffin prices. If they do not follow these rules, they will be breaking the law. The bill also sets up a way to decide exactly how the price list should look and what details need to be included, and this will be worked out in future regulations. The department will keep working with the consumer groups and the funeral industry to make sure the rules are fair and do not put too much pressure on businesses.

Right now, funeral companies do not have to show their prices online or in their shops, which makes it hard for families to compare prices. This bill will require funeral providers to post their price lists on their websites and at their business locations. They will also need to show a separate list of coffin prices. If they do not, again, they will be breaking the law. That is a clear signal that we will be bringing to the market by making it easy for people to understand the cost of funerals. As I said, other states like New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland already have these kinds of laws. It is time for Victoria, and we will now. So I will commend the bill to the house.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (17:01): I am pleased to rise to make a few brief comments on the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024. It is a slim bill by nature, and probably its impact in the wider society is also going to be fairly slim. But the Nationals and, as I heard Mr Davis say, the Liberals will not be opposing this bill. It gives me an opportunity not only to touch and reflect on the bill but also to make some comments that I think are apposite to my region and issues facing funeral directors, funeral homes and also caravan parks and residential caravan parks in my electorate.

When we look at the actual parts of the bill, part 2 amends the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and part 3 amends the Funerals Act 2006. The bill certainly provides standard forms to be used in terms of residential tenancies and in terms of site agreements, increasing transparency and allowing for more comparisons across the industry. The bill also looks to define clearly and tie the CPI to the Melbourne-based CPI and not any other ABS CPI measurement used in rental calculations. In relation to funeral homes, it legislates the fact that there should be transparency and the display of price lists on funeral companies’ websites and at their premises for clarity.

This is a nice little duplex, we will call it, of amendments in relation to transparency and the importance of transparency. It is a little bit like this government is saying, ‘We’re happy to put transparency out there onto residential caravan parks and funeral parlours, but don’t look over here,’ because we have seen today there has been a lack of transparency in documents not being presented. But I will not digress too far from the content and interest of my discussion today.

We heard in the flood inquiry the importance of the Victorian Caravan Parks Association, and we heard from the president David Pratt and the CEO Scott Parker. They had some real and relevant data that I thought would be good to share with the house in relation to that association. Clearly, they do not represent all registered caravan parks, but they do represent 80 per cent of the registered caravan parks in this state – and well represented they are. It was formed a bit before I was born and a lot before the Acting President was born, in 1964, so this caravan parks association has certainly been around for a long time.

Collectively that 80 per cent of the market actually contributes $2.4 billion in gross state product – a very worthwhile and worthy industry, an important industry for a raft of reasons – and they employ around 17,000 people. That is not inconsequential in terms of that industry and that generation, and of course many of those caravan parks are in Eastern Victoria Region and are in our regions. Why? Because, one, they can be multi-use of course. They can be there for the tourism industry and for people to go and bring their camper trailer and plug in or go off grid, but also they can be there as a form of permanent housing for people – and a very important part of that.

I had the pleasure of popping up to Queensland over the break with my mum. We visited my eldest cousin; he is considerably older than I am. They have chosen to live in a beautiful spot on the Sunshine Coast, and they live permanently in a residential caravan park. It suits their needs. They do not want the hassle of a large house and grounds and the like. They like the company. In fact I think they are very well known not only for their community spirit but for looking in on other people who are more elderly than they are – they are not elderly – and being in that community that actually often sits in those residential caravan parks. It is well maintained. I did wonder how I would ever get all my shoes and clothes into that very small section of wardrobe, but I admire them for it. It is hot and beautiful up there, naturally, all the time so that you do not need the coats and jackets that we have in Victoria – not that I do not love my coat and jackets.

This is very real for many people. Indeed in Victoria, residential accommodation – short-term accommodation or ongoing residential accommodation – is in the vicinity of 12,000 people across Victoria inhabiting caravan parks and residential land lease communities. So this is a very important factor in that. One of the comments that we heard, I think it was from David Pratt during our inquiry hearing, was how devastating it was for those affected in flood-prone areas under those massive floods. It really impacted over 70 of those caravan parks. He said that one-fifth of their members sustained property damage and many others were isolated by the impact of road closures and service interruptions, and 1800 caravan park residential and holiday dwellings were impacted. I have my colleague behind me Mrs Broad, and we certainly went and had a look in Seymour. We saw, and it is very much true to form of residential caravan park owners in general, that they are overwhelmingly – I think the figures are around 60 per cent – mum-and-dad investors. I think these people were grandpa-and-grandma investors. They had been in caravan parks virtually all their working lives. They had come there to use it as a retirement or a slight slowing down, and there they were up to their gunnels in mud and debris. It was very heartbreaking for them because they had to basically start again.

There are some issues I will touch lightly on but not in great depth. Approximately 30 of the worst affected Victorian border caravan parks experienced combined asset repair and asset replacement costs of $45 million. When that flood hit it actually decimated those areas and those caravan parks, and the thing is the lost bookings. We certainly saw those lost bookings during COVID in caravan parks as well. Thousands of people were impacted, and some of those parks at the time when we interviewed them were still to be opened. I am sure my colleague the member for Euroa could give me an update on that fantastic caravan park there.

I am getting to the topic around pricing and putting pricing as a transparency measure for people who are seeking residential caravan parks as an option. Some of the in-built cost is of course the loss to business when caravan parks are closed for whatever reason – floods or COVID – but also the imposts. There were some considerable issues in relation to accessing grants and the fiddly nature of accessing those grants.

My last comment on this particular topic, and this was a recommendation that was multiparty and all agreed, is that recommendation 64 of that flood inquiry was that the Victorian government recognise caravan parks as essential businesses in disaster-prone areas and as providers of housing and emergency support and ensure support is available, including grants under disaster relief funding arrangements to caravan park operators, including those operating on Crown land. There were some significant issues around Crown land.

The other point that I raise – I have just had a look at the Parks Victoria submission, and this is my final one on this topic – is that VicParks spoke to the issue of how the industry contributes significant economic benefits to regional Victoria. They cited some examples: 15,000 people in regional Victoria and $2 billion in gross state product. So thank you to all those park operators who do so well in meeting the needs not only for tourism and people going on holidays and family togetherness but also providing that roof over a head, and a very important one.

I had a conversation today with a chap I have known basically all my life. He is the lessee of the Waratah Bay Caravan Park. It is a fantastic area. I want you to all go and visit there – it is just a beautiful place in Gippsland – and all the other places around as well. He said that he is very focused on compliance, as are the other caravan parks in the area. This caravan park does not have long-term residents. It is Crown land; I think it is owned by Parks Victoria. One of the things that he raised as a concern is the desperate nature of the requests from people begging for housing, from people displaced and homeless. He said that these people often have a decent car. They are not necessarily the poorest of the poor approaching, but they are displaced. They cannot find a rental property or, for whatever reason, they have been displaced. He put the point that people in those situations can be in that situation for 59 days straight. He certainly finds himself renting out his accommodation, his permanent vans, to mothers with kids who just cannot find a roof over their heads. He is greatly concerned by that and was emotional when he spoke to me.

The other thing, and I know Acting President Berger spoke about the housing statement, is that last year Victoria – I will not say the government – built 55,000 homes. This year we are on target for about 53,000. We had the property council in to speak to us recently, and they spoke about 53,000. That is well short of the 80,000 that this government was spruiking from the treetops a little while ago, and it does not look like it is going anywhere near that figure.

To the funeral homes in my last few moments: I also want to thank Dave Hastie. Dave Hastie is a fantastic chap from the Latrobe Valley, and he is the Victorian president of the Australian Funeral Directors Association. He spoke about some of the impacts that are occurring, and he very much supported the need for this transparency. He said other states – including New South Wales, which we know about, and South Australia – recently legislated about transparency of pricing on their websites et cetera. He was in support of that – he is the president, so he was speaking from that point of view – as a whole.

One of the things that he finds quite concerning is that there seem to be some funeral options thrown up in the system that are non-attendance funerals. They are called direct burials and direct cremations. He raised the issue that some of these are quite cheap by comparison, but often they are not meeting needs. People really are caught short. They do not realise mum and dad go in one way and then a period of time later come out in a cremation box. Sometimes this actually adds to the grieving process rather than being able to holistically look and work through things if your parents or grandparents, whoever your loved ones are, are alive – having the opportunity to discuss their death and burial and what that would like. He said that sometimes there is a miscommunication between generations and that it is really important for people to sit down and look at those options and have those honest and dear conversations. That can help on both sides – those who are elderly or those who are terminally ill but also the family who are left behind.

He also said that the funeral business is actually a very expensive business and to buy a new hearse is around $190,000. We do not see that; we travel behind our friend or loved one. Also, he is about to build a new mortuary that will have an exposé that you can walk through with your family and actually see from start to finish what that process will look like. He said it is well over a million dollars to build that, and in that there will be qualified embalmers and the like. I think he was wanting to share his thoughts around the importance of being very professional and also meeting the needs of people. He often supports people who really are on a very low budget to still honour and respect their loved ones as they go to the other place.

With those few comments, I want to thank the people I have spoken with: Dave Hastie and also Jim Harry. The Nationals will not be opposing this bill.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (17:16): This is actually a tough bill to speak on, because it brought me to some reflections on funerals and some reflections on loss and grieving and in fact a phone call I only received last night from a loved one. It was peppered with some words that are entirely unparliamentary about when the bill came in for the costs associated with burying her father.

In May this year, someone very, very dear to me passed. I had just about no idea of the extraordinary costs and the hidden costs – the sudden costs – associated with funerals, because in my family we had a loss that we knew was coming and we planned for it and we were ready for it. But when these losses come suddenly and unexpectedly, and at a time of enormous grief and loss, families are often not ready to have those conversations, so the process of purchasing funeral products can be a really trying time. In our efforts to make sure that everyone in the family is looked after and cared for, well, we just agree to whatever it is that is put in front of us by some of these providers. For my family, we made some decisions that now are really tough to take. So I was really kind of delighted to see that I was up to speak on this today and could reflect their experiences, particularly reflecting the extraordinary cost of funerals for those from our faith-based communities.

I have recently been in very profound conversations with some leaders from, frankly, our funeral industry – those supporting faith-based services in our community out in the eastern suburbs and also in the northern suburbs. Like Ms Bath said, there are extraordinary costs associated with organisations putting together services appropriate to the cultural, emotional and religious care of communities at this time. To them, I say thank you for doing what you do. I am hoping that this bill means that your period of perhaps supporting those at their most vulnerable is eased a little bit, because it is a tough conversation to be a part of. As someone who just spoke on the last bill – about coronial inquests and the cultural rights afforded to communities at that time and how challenging they can be – and is now thinking about funeral costs and how challenging they can be and the bills that come up and wanting so desperately to honour your loved one for eternity, I know that that can come at an extraordinary cost at a really unexpected time.

With this bill before us we are going to make it a little bit clearer and a little bit easier and also encourage some compliance around funeral pricing. Some of these prices are just extraordinary. I have contributed to more GoFundMes for funerals than any other charitable giving in the last 10 years. The GoFundMes that come around into my inbox, into my Facebook feed and into my messages are extraordinary. They are from communities in distress. They are from communities who have been suddenly hit with the enormous cost of funerals and they are not ready. They are vulnerable and they are grieving. So to the families of community members that in desperation need to set up GoFundMes, I am hoping that this bill will make life a little bit easier for you. Sorry business is a really tough, tough time, and the bills come and they hit hard. In a week when we are marking suicide awareness, I have got to say that all too frequently those GoFundMes are for funerals of young people whose lives have been taken by suicide. So it is mums in deep distress and it is cousins, brothers, uncles and aunties in deep distress that set up these GoFundMes because the enormous price of honouring their loved ones comes so suddenly. The fact is that we are often just not ready for it.

I hope that this goes just some small way towards making life easier at a time of profound grief and sorrow. Those bills when they come sometimes are like grief all over again, because you are selling the possessions of your loved one to pay for their eternal memory. I know, having just paid many thousands of dollars to get the lettering on my father’s plot refreshed, that the prices are absolutely extraordinary and disgusting. Some regulation around this and some penalties for noncompliance and extraordinary pricing needs to happen, and it needs to happen now. I know that this will be welcomed by many members of the community. I am hoping that we can get cracking with this, frankly, as soon as possible. I look forward to calling that friend who called me last night in deep distress to say that I hope what I did today by voting for and supporting this bill will make life just a little bit easier for the next member of our family or the next member of our community when they are going through profound grief, loss and sorry time. I cannot commend this more. I will leave my remarks there.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:24): I rise to speak today on the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024. This bill aims to increase protections for Victorian consumers by requiring certain service providers to give information to consumers in a clear and transparent format so that they can make well-informed decisions about their purchases and the contracts they enter into.

Specifically, the bill will first amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 so that owners of residential parks who lease sites to residents will have to draw up their site agreements in a prescribed standard format that is clear. They will also have to disclose certain information and follow a prescribed method for determining and increasing the rent of the site. People who live in caravans or mobile homes on a site in a residential park can often come from vulnerable cohorts, perhaps because they are older, retired or struggling to find work or a home to rent in the middle of the Allan Labor government’s housing crisis. These new requirements will make the site agreements more transparent as well as clarify the rights of tenants and the obligations of site providers. Secondly, the bill will amend the Funerals Act 2006 to require funeral providers to display a price list of their coffins and funeral services both at their business premises and on the business website. This is a short bill. It is straightforward and uncontroversial, and the Liberals and Nationals will not be opposing it.

However, I do have some criticisms to make about the weakness of this bill, because in several ways it just does not do enough. The stated aim of the bill is to increase protections for Victorian consumers by making contracts and prices clear and transparent, with the idea that when consumers are better informed they will be able to shop around and get the best price. But at the same time as the Labor government is saying it is trying to help consumers with clearer price information, it is actually the Labor government that is hurting consumers by making prices higher. We are all well aware that there is a cost-of-living crisis at the moment, and this reckless government’s spending is contributing to inflationary pressures that are making prices go up across all areas of the economy. Spiralling inflation is one of the most destructive things that can happen to a nation’s economy. Both federal and state Labor governments are now stoking inflation with subsidies and high spending rather than exercising responsible fiscal restraint to bring inflation back down.

If Labor really cared about consumers, they would do something about their inflationary policies that are hurting consumers by driving prices higher. Consumers also have less money to spend, because this greedy Labor government is taxing Victorians more than ever before. Since 2014 there have been 55 new or increased taxes under the state Labor government – 55 new taxes that take money from the pockets of hardworking Victorians and put it into the pocket of the Labor government for them to waste billions in Big Build blowouts. Because of Labor’s taxes, ordinary Victorians have less disposable income and less money in their savings accounts, while the cost of everything is going up, which makes a farce of Labor’s rhetoric, because while Labor claims this bill is helping consumers, all of the government’s other policies are in fact hurting consumers.

I have been speaking about the economy and prices in general, but let me come specifically to funeral prices, which is the topic of this bill. Sections 21 and 22 of the Funerals Act already require that a funeral provider produces a price list of funeral goods and services and that the provider makes that list available to anyone who asks for it. This bill currently before the house will amend the Funerals Act in two small ways. First, it will insert new section 23A, which will require a funeral provider to display their price list on the website and also display the list prominently at the business premises. This is a commonsense requirement. In 2024 most people do their research online before making a big purchase, but when it comes to funerals I wonder whether they really will do that research. I believe that when people are organising a funeral – and from personal experience – it is that personal touch that is needed by the funeral directors, so I do not expect that many people will be in the mindset of researching and comparing prices when they are dealing with grief. But in saying that, it should be an option for those who would want to use it.

Funeral choices are often forced upon us unexpectedly, and it is necessary to make immediate decisions at a difficult time when we are going through deep emotional turmoil and might struggle to think clearly. A moment of profound grief, sadness and often family tensions is not an ideal time to be purchasing a service or a monument that will be very expensive and last a long time. So it is especially important the consumer process for family members engaging with funeral providers is as simple, clear and painless as possible. Requiring funeral providers to display their full price list on their website so the purchasers can more easily find a service they like or compare a price with a quote they have received is a commonsense improvement to the act. This amendment will also bring Victoria into line with other jurisdictions like New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia so that those who are living interstate from their departed loved ones can have a seamless experience.

The second way this bill will amend the act is by giving power to the Governor in Council to make regulations for the particular format that those price lists should take. But just as I have been talking about the cost of things going up in this state and the impact that the government’s policies are having on household budgets and on the cost of living, we can talk about the cost of dying also going up. News reports tell us that the data shows one in four Victorians will experience financial distress as a result of arranging and paying for a loved one’s funeral. This bill might help some consumers in knowing what the prices are, but consumers will still be left in the dark as to why those prices are so high. That is why this bill does not go far enough. It could do more to ensure transparency for consumers so that they know why the cost of dying is going up.

But Labor do not want transparency on the issue, because they are the reason that the cost of living and the cost of dying are getting so expensive. In a recent desperate cash grab the Labor government is running a process that shows that it is planning to increase the cost of probate fees by up to 650 per cent. That is a massive hike. It is nothing less than a death tax by stealth. Labor cannot manage money, and now it is trying to fix the budget by making grieving Victorian families pay the price at their most vulnerable time. Not even dying is enough to keep Victorians safe from Labor’s new taxes – they will take money from you beyond the grave. And that is just probate fees.

When it comes to funerals, the government has been directly involved in approving the increase to fees that cemeteries charge, and some of these increases have been exorbitant. Consider Remembrance Parks Central Victoria, which operates many cemeteries across my electorate – in Bendigo, Eaglehawk, Kangaroo Flat, White Hills, Axedale, Pine Lodge, Kialla West and Donnybrook. Back in May 2022, RPCV tried to impose new fees that included price rises of as much as 270 per cent for burials. The RPCV trust modelled those price increases on prices set up for metropolitan memorial parks, which failed to take into account the standard of cemeteries in regional centres, which differ from memorial parks in the metropolitan Melbourne area, and also ignored important factors like average household income being lower in regional Victoria. I led the fight against those price increases, and together with a vigorous backlash from funeral directors and the community, we thwarted the attempt to increase those prices.

But that has not stopped Labor trying again. Just a few months ago, in May and July just this year, the government gazetted big fee increases at the Shepparton Public Cemetery. Funeral directors advise me that the fee has increased the total cost of interments by up to 438 per cent. The funeral directors were shocked and said that price increases of this scale had never been seen before. The cost of plots jumped up, the price of grave sinking went up and interment fees increased. The government even got creative and instituted a new late fee that no other cemetery charges, and these are government fees. Normally fees are put forward by the cemetery trusts and approved by the government. But in this case a member of the cemetery trust told me that they had reached out to the department to set the fees, so these fees were set by the government. It is hard to see these fee increases as anything other than a cash grab by the Labor government, who really do not care about the impact these fees are having on the cost of living for Victorian families.

The department’s official manual for cemetery trusts states that fees should be consistent, transparent, affordable and aligned with community expectations. But these new and increased fees at the Shepparton cemetery are not affordable and do not align with community expectations in a regional town with a socio-economic profile like Shepparton’s. Such price rises are exorbitant and unconscionable. Consumers need to know that it is the Labor government that endorses and approves cemetery fee structures, and it is directly implicated in the big jump in the cost of a funeral. But this bill, which aims to introduce clarity and transparency into funeral pricing, leaves consumers in the dark about why those prices are so high. This is all part of a larger pattern of mismanagement at government cemetery entities that calls into question the competence of those in charge, meaning those who are appointed by the Minister for Health to run the cemetery trusts.

For the last three years each year has started with a scandal involving Remembrance Parks Central Victoria, which manages the cemeteries in my electorate. In 2022 the scandal was the board’s plan to increase the costs of burials. There was a big community backlash. The board blamed the CEO. He departed the organisation, and the price increases were quashed. In 2023 it was the desecration of graves as cherished family mementos and memorials were removed from gravesites, and that resulted in the resignation of another CEO. Then in January 2024 the parents of a son who had died went to visit his grave only to find it looking like an excavation site where deep holes had been dug and steel rods pushed through into the earth. One of those rods had gone straight through the foot of their son’s coffin and fragments of wood and the metal from the coffin were found in the dirt on the surface of the grave. Throughout these scandals the RPCV trust has had numerous governance failures. They failed to lodge annual reports and they failed to hold annual general meetings on time, sometimes holding them up to six months late, and for certain years there is no record of a meeting even being held. There is something rotten in the state of funerals and cemetery management in Victoria, and the Labor government has done nothing to clean things up; in fact they keep endorsing this trust, which is incompetent and should be sacked.

This bill requiring funeral providers to display their prices on their website is not even a bandaid for the problems that Labor is creating in the cemetery and funeral industry. The government’s stated aim of the bill is to increase protection for consumers, but where is the protection for consumers against the Allan Labor government’s greed, financial mismanagement and incompetence?

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (17:38): I am pleased to speak on this bill, and I will make a very brief contribution. This bill strengthens the regulatory requirements for information in two key sectors: residential parks and funeral homes. My focus will be on residential parks, such as it is. The amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 go towards strengthening and enhancing protections for residents of residential parks. People living in residential parks are covered under the caravan parks and moveable dwellings provisions of the Victorian Residential Tenancies Act 1997, provided at least one dwelling in the park meets the legal definition of a moveable dwelling. Residential parks are regulated under part 4A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. Typically, residents own a movable dwelling or a small house and rent the land that sits underneath the dwelling. The land is usually owned by a body corporate or a land lease company. Sometimes the land is perhaps not owned but may be managed by a council.

With the existing pressure on Victoria’s housing market, more Victorians are living in residential parks. There has been substantial growth in the land lease industry. The Allan Labor government is responding to this quite legitimate growth sector, and this bill is needed to ensure that there are sensible protections in place for consumers. This market is currently not well regulated, which presents risks to both residents and companies. For example, residential park site agreements are not currently required to be in a standard form and can vary across operators. This makes it difficult for residents to easily compare terms and conditions and, importantly, be assured they are getting the most appropriate arrangements for their situation.

Precontractual disclosure requirements do not currently support residents to properly understand their obligations, and this includes the financial costs involved in living in or exiting a residential park, nor do they include how rent increases are calculated or how bond arrangements are formulated. This bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act to bolster consumer protections and clearly sets out all rights and responsibilities for these residents. This will require that all residential park site agreements are in a prescribed form as determined in regulations. This will mean that the consumers can more easily understand agreements and make their own decisions. It will expand the types of information that a site owner must disclose to a prospective site tenant before entering into a site agreement. This includes simple things like the name and contact details of the site owner or the site owner’s representative at the park and the prescribed entitlements and financial matters and obligations for when someone enters into and leaves a residential park. This will include, but is not limited to, bond arrangements and requirements around fees and charges. It will require that rent increases occur by a fixed amount explicitly set out in the site agreement, including the formula and method for calculating a rent increase. In short, these requirements will allow prospective residents to fully understand exactly what they are entering into and what the costs and obligations will be. Not only will these lease conditions be codified and uniform in their structure, but they will include greater protections, and therefore certainty, for their living arrangements. These reforms will bring more clarity and certainty for owners, and I support the bill.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:42): I also rise to make a very brief contribution on the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024. The bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and the Funerals Act 2006. With regard to both bills the aspect that they have in common is the reference to transparency. The new bills allow for increasing transparency within their respective industries. The irony for me is the call for transparency. It is not lost on me that this is a government developing bills that require transparency of others, expecting family and small businesses to be transparent, when this government feels the need to regularly avoid transparency themselves and its habit of not recalling or not releasing reports or reviews in a timely manner or not at all or perhaps providing reports that say very little if anything of any significance or substance leaves the public and the Parliament to be consistently denied vital and important information.

Changes to the residential aspect of this bill allow for increasing transparency in aspects, particularly in the residential parks industry, with the use of standard forms to allow people, particularly the 4A residents, to compare the offering of one residential park with another, make more informed decisions and make comparisons across the industry.

I did notice, however, that there was a mention across the chamber of lease conditions, park owners’ names and contacts and the method used for rent increase, and I have to say that I find these sorts of limitations quite invasive for anybody. Whilst it might be interesting to know who owns those parks, is it really vital to be able to access the owners themselves? I am not sure, particularly in some of the cases where these things are developed, that it is actually a really good thing for people who own these businesses to be that transparent. But having said that, we will not be opposing this bill. I think that transparency to a degree is warranted. However, transparency that puts people at risk of being harassed in any shape or form is not great transparency.

Changes to the funeral industry include the transparency provided in terms of funeral costs and the prices that are listed on websites and in the funeral parlour, as I understand that, so people – loved ones, families, close relatives – who are all vulnerable usually at a time when they have lost someone will be able to organise a funeral by looking at the costs that they need to, readily available to them, and will be able to calculate and make decisions about what they can afford and what they want before they even enter into a meeting with the funeral directors. I can say for myself, as a person who recently lost their father, that we made the effort to go to the funeral parlour the very next day, and it was too soon. What we did not think about was the overwhelming situation we found ourselves in, where we were having to make decisions and there was also money involved. It is hard enough trying to come to terms with some of the simple decisions that you have to make without realising that there are substantial costs involved in a funeral.

I welcome the transparency here, and I think that this is a great opportunity for people to be able to do some of the work in their own home. Being able to access information through a website is going to be extremely helpful for people in a time of grief. They can then make some decisions about whom they want to go to, what it is going to cost them and how they might be able to make the funeral arrangements. It is quite traumatic having to sit down and make so many decisions at once when you have no understanding of what those costs might be. For anyone who has had to go through that experience, and I see some heads nodding on the other side of the chamber, it is quite overwhelming. It is difficult enough making the decisions about how you want to honour the person who you have lost without having to suddenly be looking at the costs of even, for instance, the coffin.

As I said, the Liberals and Nationals do not have a formal position. We have not worked on this document. We have read it, and we are aware of it. We are not planning to oppose the bill. We welcome and support the transparency. We will look to see how it unfolds, how it rolls out and how it helps. As I said, in the area of funeral costs and prices I hope that this is not going to be detrimental to the business of the funeral industry. At the same time, for me personally this would have been extremely helpful had we already brought this in and had it been available to me in the situation when I was grieving and having to make decisions for my family, so I do welcome it.

I do want to give a shout-out to Bethel Funerals for the wonderful work that they did and all of the funeral directors that are out there, who can be so incredibly respectful and kind in a time of grief. I think it is a very difficult industry to work in, and to have people speaking calmly and organising things for you and sometimes even thinking of those little things that we do not think of ourselves can make all the difference. I do want to give a shout-out to Bethel Funerals and all the other funeral businesses out there. I only mention Bethel because that is the one that we recently used for my father. As I said, for those who are experiencing unexpected loss this bill is going to help you and your family.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:48): Some brief remarks from me today in relation to the bill. Before I go to my own contribution, I just want to reflect on the incredibly moving and heartfelt contribution that Ms Watt made earlier. I think it spoke very deeply, very eloquently and very sincerely to very significant issues that many in the community who may not have the means face when they are suffering through the grief of loss, only to be confronted with the harsh realities of the costs of that loss. I think Ms Watt spoke very well, as others have, but in particular I just want to make mention of that contribution and reflect on that contribution and the very real effects that these matters clearly have. I will not in my brief contribution today touch on the funeral aspects. Others have done that particularly well.

I just want to say that I think the changes that are being made to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, part 4A, which is being amended by this bill to increase the consumer protections for residential park residents, are exceptionally important. I think they are going to help provide a degree of consumer protection and a degree of certainty to strengthen the provisions around this form of accommodation that many in the community – many older people in the community and those who have lower incomes and who do not have an asset base behind them – face. What you see from the government, again and again and again, is that this Labor government is committed to delivering increased consumer protections for those who need to rent, whether they are renting in standalone dwellings, whether they are renting in units or whether they are renting in these types of caravan park or residential park arrangements. It is a bit shocking that some of the things that other renters would take for granted in terms of standard form contracts, some form of pre-contractual disclosure and certainly the protections that exist in longer term leases with respect to certainty of rent increases do not apply to residential park residents. That is a real shame and a real disgrace I think. What this legislation is doing is fixing the problems with that part of the rental market in the same way that this Labor government has taken strong and repeated action over many years to increase protections for our renters.

This Labor government stands up for renters in our community. We will continue to make sure that renters in Victoria have strong consumer protections and strong rights and are able to live the kind of life that they deserve in accommodation that meets appropriate standards; makes them safe, not sick; and ensures that they have got a place that they can call home. That, fundamentally, is what our strengthening of renter protections is all about. We will continue to crack down on the dodgy practices and dodgy providers that bedevil the rental sector here in Victoria. This bill is dealing with it in residential parks, but we know right across the board there are too many people who seek to exploit the conditions that renters face and the state of the residential rental market. An inquiry by the Legal and Social Issues Committee delved into some of these issues, and our report last year made some pretty strong recommendations about how to better protect renters here in Victoria. I think it is great to see, yet again, that this Labor government is delivering better consumer protections for renters here in Victoria. This is a great improvement for this particular segment of the renting community. I strongly support it and I support the bill passing today.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:53): I also rise to share a few words on the bill before us today, the Residential Tenancies and Funerals Amendment Bill 2024. Like many others, I will at the outset say that I will keep my remarks relatively brief and succinct. I note that our colleague the first opposition speaker, Mr Davis, said that, and I will not go nearly as close to 15 minutes. However, I will just say a few words on what is before us today. I think other colleagues have already extensively gone through that this is a very straightforward bill but a very sensible bill, and I am very pleased to see that it is one that is enjoying broad support in the house.

Firstly, with regard to funeral arrangements, there is perhaps no more stressful time for someone than when dealing with the loss of a loved one. It is a time at which having clear, accurate information is so, so critical. The reforms and improved regulations that will be set out under the reforms in this amendment bill will ensure that those families who are going through the grief that comes from losing a loved one will have clear, accessible information and will know what they are up for in terms of the cost of a funeral, a coffin or anything else. That is a very simple thing to improve but a very important thing, because it is a perfect measure of where effective regulation can work hand in hand with the free market to actually make that free market better for people, more accessible to people and more likely to allow them to make an informed choice that is best for them. That is something that should be welcomed by the funeral industry as much as it should be welcomed by those of us, which is indeed all of us at one point or another, who engage with the funeral industry when it comes to making arrangements for the funeral of a loved one.

The other part of it of course is residential tenancies, specifically as it relates to those residential park arrangements again. Mr Batchelor probably said it perfectly succinctly in his remarks, but it does go to underscore the importance that this government places on effective protection measures for rental consumers. We have seen the raft – well over 100; 190 I believe – of reforms to make renting easier in the state of Victoria, make it more stable and make it more secure. These reforms add to that, specifically for those people in those residential park tenancy arrangements, because they are quite a unique type of living arrangement. It is really important that, irrespective of what living arrangement you are in, you have those basic rights and those basic protections, and that is exactly what this bill will do by providing a more uniform approach to avoid people falling through the cracks and finding themselves exposed or in bad situations where they are at a financial or other disadvantage. Particularly as we place an emphasis on responsibly growing the stock of housing in this state, be it in the outer suburbs, in the inner city or in the regions, be it social housing, be it private housing or be it alternative living arrangements, such as liberalising the construction of granny flats across Victoria – indeed we are seeing more people live in residential park arrangements – it is absolutely critical that as we are doing that, and as we are providing for that growth to accommodate the vast demands for housing that Victorians have, that we are doing so in a way that ensures that all people are looked after and all people have the same rights under what is very fair legislation that is set out with everyday Victorians in mind. So I do therefore join my colleagues in endorsing this bill and commending it to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Regional Development) (17:57): I move, by leave:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with without amendment.