Thursday, 6 February 2025

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (12:41): (796) My question is to the Treasurer. Given that the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars demolishing public housing estates like Barak Beacon, with over $474 million in service payments to private developers over 40 years for just the four ground lease 2 sites and an estimated cost of $1.3 million per community housing unit – significantly higher than the cost of building public housing – how can the government justify this model as a cost-effective solution to the housing crisis?

Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, President, given the minister for housing is directly to my left, she would be well placed to respond to the member’s question as it sits squarely within her portfolio.

The PRESIDENT: Is Ms Gray-Barberio happy for that question to be directed to the Minister for Housing and Building, or is she happy to leave it at the response that the Treasurer has given?

Anasina Gray-Barberio: I am happy for the housing minister to respond.

The PRESIDENT: Did you get the question, Minister?

Harriet Shing: If Ms Gray-Barberio could just repeat the question, sorry, that would be great.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: My question, now to the housing minister, is: given that the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars demolishing public housing estates like Barak Beacon, with over $474 million in service payments to private developers over 40 years for just the four ground lease 2 sites and an estimated cost of $1.3 million per community housing unit – significantly higher than the cost of building public housing – how can the government justify this model as a cost-effective solution to the current housing crisis?

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (12:43): Thank you, Ms Gray-Barberio. I am very pleased to be able to assist you with perhaps some of the context around the premise of your question. I would take issue with the calculations you have used for the purpose of understanding the cost per unit of community versus public housing as part of the overall delivery of social housing stock across the state. Often that includes land acquisition and often that includes a range of other factors that are not present in public housing, particularly on sites that already exist for the purposes of remodelling, refurbishment and development.

You did take us to the ground lease models 1 and 2, and this is a really important part of the way in which we increase the inventory, the homes, the volume and the locations of housing for people most in need. When we talk to increasing availability and affordability, it is also about opening up locations so that we can provide more, for example, build-to-rent properties. That is where we take pressure off other parts of the housing system. For example, homelessness statistics indicate that around 40 per cent of people who are accessing those homelessness services for the first time are coming from private rentals, so being able to prevent people from coming into homelessness by making sure that they retain or can access private rentals is one big part of addressing the challenge around housing issues and shortages. The sites that are being developed under the ground lease model will collectively, under ground lease models 1 and 2, deliver 2740 one- and two-bedroom homes.

In addition to that, the development of the towers sites – which is, again, a multidecade process – is about making sure that we can update those really outdated and noncompliant buildings. If we were to approach the management of these towers and this ageing stock from the perspective of retrofit and refurbishment, we would be ignoring the fact that they fail against flood, fire and seismic risk, disability access and compliance, amenity, natural light, ventilation, doorway width, ceiling height, and the list goes on. The communities who call these towers home are proud, they are determined and they are also deserving of housing that meets their needs, including as they age in place. These are investments, again, that would require, based on the rationale you have talked to, all residents to relocate while any refurbishment took place.

We will disagree on the basis by which you say that that can occur without the sort of displacement that we have understood as part of funding models to be really at the heart of what would drive inequity. But we are continuing the work through the record investment in housing; through the $5.3 billion Big Housing Build, of which at least $1.25 billion has gone to regional Victoria; through partnerships with the Commonwealth; and through record investments – $197 million over the budget estimates for homelessness, plus $300 million and the $1 billion Regional Housing Fund. The work goes on, but it has to take place in a way that partners with all parts of the housing sector in best use for land management as well.

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (12:46): Thank you, Minister. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I do agree that homelessness is an issue here in Victoria and across Australia, but why does modernisation require privatisation? Other states have successfully upgraded public housing without selling off public land. Why won’t the Victorian government do the same?

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (12:46): Again, I take issue with the concept of privatisation. Your predecessor in this place made a lot of that concept, in fearmongering and scaremongering to people who want to actually know that they will have a place to call home. And this is why the uplift of at least 10 per cent in social housing across those tower sites is so important. It is also important to note that, when we look to acquiring or developing sites, we understand that a mix of housing needs to be provided. This includes key worker affordable housing, it includes build-to-rent and it includes ground lease model options for people. And that is, again, about making sure that people, irrespective of where they sit on the housing continuum, have an opportunity to live in a way that meets their aspirations, that meets their opportunities and that is connected to the communities around them. As our population grows – and we have touched on this in a range of other questions in this place in this sitting week and throughout the term – we need to make sure that there are homes available for people who need them. That includes in locations that are well situated, that make the best use of land that we have. Privatisation – this is, however, not the case.