Wednesday, 15 October 2025

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (10:00): I move:

That this house:

(1)   notes the government’s plan to demolish all of Melbourne’s 44 high-rise public housing sites, with North Melbourne and Flemington estates being the first towers slated for demolition;

(2)   further notes that during the public hearings held on Wednesday, 6 August 2025, for the inquiry into the redevelopment of Melbourne’s public housing towers, the Legislative Council Legal and Social Issues Committee heard Simon Newport, the CEO of Homes Victoria, confirm the existence of documents containing a cost–benefit analysis of other viable options to demolition, including retrofitting for all 44 towers; and

(3)   in accordance with standing order 10.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, within two months of the house agreeing to this resolution, the document containing the cost–benefit analysis of other viable options to demolition including retrofitting for 120 Racecourse Road and 12 Holland Court in Flemington, and 33 Alfred Street in North Melbourne.

I rise to speak on our notice of motion 1089. The government’s announcement in 2023 of their plan to demolish Melbourne’s 44 public housing towers came as a shock to thousands of residents living in those homes and to many in the community who know how important public housing is. It has been over two years since, and in this time community members, housing advocates, public housing residents, academics, journalists and the Greens have raised their voices, mobilised, picketed, written letters, rallied, signed petitions and fronted up to a public inquiry. Time and time again, we have been asking: where is the business case for this project? Where is the evidence that supports the plan to demolish rather than refurbish? So far, Labor has been reluctant to answer these questions head-on or produce the evidence. It is incumbent upon the government to be honest and open with the Victorian public, in particular the public housing residents that these decisions so deeply impact. They deserve to know the reasoning behind these plans.

This motion is asking the government to share with the residents from the Flemington and North Melbourne estates and the broader community the rationale, analysis and consultations that have taken place to justify demolishing these homes. The government has been repeatedly dismissive of the case put forward by multiple residents, advocates, engineers, architects, academics and community leaders arguing for these towers to be retrofitted and refurbished instead of demolished. Show us the evidence that backs up your case. Show us what alternatives were considered, and demonstrate why your plan for demolishing all the public housing at the Flemington and North Melbourne estates, instead of renovating, is the only option.

Every time we have requested the production of documents in this place, documents to show justification of the government’s plan to demolish our public housing towers, we have been met with resistance, excuses and claims of executive privilege. One such request saw the release of just 12 out of 158 documents the government has detailing this plan. That is 146 documents that were withheld from Parliament under executive privilege. Under standing order 10, even where privilege is claimed, the documents must still be provided in full to the Clerk and the member who moved the motion. This is not for public release. It allows for proper parliamentary oversight, including referral to an independent arbiter if needed. In this case, that process was not followed, demonstrating the government’s alarming disregard for parliamentary processes.

Given the government’s inability to produce adequate justification or evidence, why should we have any confidence in the legitimacy of this plan. Furthermore, why should we have any confidence in the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability in general. In Supreme Court proceedings last year, senior counsel for the government stated that:

… a decision was made and there are no documents …

Relating to the decision to demolish the towers in North Melbourne and Flemington, Justice Melinda Richards described the position as ‘startling’. But earlier this year public hearings for the parliamentary inquiry into the decision to demolish Melbourne’s public housing towers showed that these documents do in fact exist. Homes Victoria CEO Simon Newport testified in front of the committee that this work has been done. Four times in responses to questions, he stated that the government did in fact consider retrofit reports relevant to all 44 towers in order to conduct a proper cost–benefit analysis. Simon Newport confirmed that he has personally seen the documents that justify the demolition of all 44 towers versus retrofitting or other options. He has seen the evidence. What we are seeking with this motion today is to see this evidence – not for all 44, just North Melbourne and Flemington, the first two towers on the chopping block.

What we are seeking today is basic accountability for a really major decision, and I do not think that is too much to ask for. These are not just a couple of towers. We are talking about people’s communities, their sense of security, connection and safety, the lives they have built and the memories that they have shared. We are talking about people’s homes. This plan is causing huge distress to the public housing residents and communities around North Melbourne and Flemington. Show us the justification you have for demolishing these towers.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:05): Honestly, it is a bit difficult to listen to someone asking to be shown evidence when it is quite clear that they do not listen to the evidence that they are shown, they do not listen to the information that is provided in public hearings of the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s inquiry into the demolition of the 44 public housing towers that Ms Gray-Barberio has participated in – in fact evidence that has been given to her by witnesses. She asks for more evidence, but she has not listened to the evidence that she has received. There are inaccuracies in the speech she just gave. I do not have time to go through them all, because I would rather spend this contribution reminding Ms Gray-Barberio about the evidence that has been presented, that is in the public domain, about the condition of Melbourne’s 44 public housing towers.

I will start with the evidence that we received at Simmons Court in South Yarra on 1 July. Ms Gray-Barberio asked a witness, ‘Have you got any evidence that they are structurally unsound?’ The witness replied, ‘Yes’. Ms Gray-Barberio said, ‘Evidence you can provide the committee?’ And the witness said, ‘Well, if you look at the back of the square in the ceiling, at all the things from the water pipes, there is something coming from the sewerage in places.’ In the hearing when Ms Gray-Barberio asked for evidence, a witness who is a resident in those public housing towers said, ‘Turn around and look at the ceiling’ –

Katherine Copsey: On a point of order, President, this is a narrow motion relating to two public housing towers, and the documents related to those in South Yarra is not part of the motion. I ask that the member be brought back to the subject of the motion.

Michael Galea: On the point of order, despite proving the point that the Greens are not prepared to listen to evidence on this matter, Mr Batchelor is being relevant to this motion.

The PRESIDENT: Mr Batchelor is responding to a contribution made by Ms Gray-Barberio, which he has a right to.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I am sorry that the Greens continue to not listen to evidence provided to them about the condition of the 44 public housing towers. As I was saying, in a public hearing when Ms Gray-Barberio asked a witness about evidence about the condition of the towers, she pointed to the ceiling where sewage runs out of pipes. And when asked, ‘Have DFFH tried to fix those pipes?’ the witness replied, ‘They have tried to fix that hundreds of times, and sometimes the water keeps running. So I do understand that they cannot keep on fixing it when it is unfeasible. They need to go.’ That was evidence that Ms Gray-Barberio heard in public hearings.

Later in the course of these public hearings we did have evidence from Homes Victoria about the condition of the public housing towers. I admit, this was not a question that Ms Gray-Barberio asked – it was a question that a member of the opposition asked about the condition of the towers themselves – but the witness, Mr McCurry from Homes Victoria, talked about how he had, with his own fingers in front of members of the committee, crumbled pieces of concrete and steel reinforcement from the corridor of the tower in North Melbourne. He reminded members of the committee in public evidence that they had seen him hold a piece of concrete in his fingers and watch it crumble in his hands.

That is the evidence that we heard as a committee in public hearings that Ms Gray-Barberio was part of. We also had evidence about the escalating costs of maintenance. Ms Gray-Barberio asked, ‘What about the other options? Can we just refurbish them?’ We had considerable evidence provided at our public hearings about the escalating costs associated with just keeping the towers the way they are.

We do not have time in this debate, because the standing orders preclude us from having a proper debate on short-form documents motions, thanks to the deal that the Greens and the Liberals did. What we will have is a report from this inquiry soon, and I look forward to working on it and tabling it. I do not think the Greens are going to listen to a single piece of evidence about this program because they have not listened to what they have been told so far. They do not listen.

 Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (10:11): That was quite an extraordinary contribution. Just because some evidence has been listed does not mean that all evidence has been listed. This is about openness, transparency and accountability. I know as chair of the committee that we have asked numerous times for documents. A member of the committee talked about witnesses that have come before the committee to give evidence. Those witnesses are not structural engineers – they are not experts – and they were not the ones charged by the government to provide them with evidence which justifies knocking down the towers. I will not be lectured by someone in here about providing documents and about evidence given from a witness that is not an expert in that matter, particularly from Mr Batchelor, who is on the committee himself and knows better. He knows better. He talked about witnesses and their testimony and the condition of the building. If that is the case, why doesn’t the government provide the documents that confirm that? If there is nothing to hide, why do you want to hide them? It is as simple as that. What is there to hide? If what you are asserting is true and what you say is confirmed by witnesses, why won’t you provide documents that confirm that? It is a simple question: why won’t you provide documents that confirm that?

Members interjecting.

Joe McCRACKEN: I am glad to hear that you are not opposing it. That is fantastic to hear. I am pleased to hear that. If it is your practice to support these documents coming to the chamber, I very much look forward to the Treasurer providing those documents to the chamber in a timely manner. I hope that that happens with the rest of the documents that have been provided as well, because practices, I have to say, are not always adhered to, and there is a live motion at the moment to that effect, moved by Mr Davis. I hope that we do see these documents. Legitimate questions that have been raised, which have not really been responded to in an effective way, deserve an honest response.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:13): I also rise to share a few remarks on the motion that has been put forward by Ms Gray-Barberio today. As Mr McCracken helpfully highlighted the interjections of the Treasurer and Ms Terpstra just now, I can affirm that the government will not be opposing this motion, as is our standard practice. It does give me the opportunity to make a few remarks. On Mr Batchelor’s comments, I know in particular that it was quite a powerful moment of evidence in the inquiry when we heard from a resident who lives in the towers, who supports residents with their issues in the towers day in, day out. When asked to provide that evidence, they literally pointed above our heads and very vividly described to us one small example of the issues that are being faced. I acknowledge your contribution as well, Mr McCracken – dare I say, a contribution fit for a frontbencher. Maybe next time.

Joe McCracken: You’ll get there one day too, mate.

Michael GALEA: That is very kind of you, but we support each other on this side, and we have already got a very good front bench, thank you very much.

Acknowledging Ms Gray-Barberio’s passion for this and noting that the government will not be opposing this motion, I really do think it is important that we again look at the evidence that we have. The towers as they currently stand fail against noise standards. They certainly fail against sustainability standards: waste, recycling, room depth, door width, ventilation, fire, resistance to extreme heat and resistance to cold. The showers are step-up, and they cannot be retrofitted to be accessible for people.

The issues go on and on and on, and they are not providing an acceptable level of minimum amenity for residents. We know that only 5 per cent of the lifts in these towers are stretcher compliant, posing a risk. We know that elevators in 11 of the older people’s towers are so narrow that new fridges need their doors removed in order to fit them in. On top of that, key systems like the electrical infrastructure, which this committee has had the opportunity of seeing onsite in the towers, the plumbing and the sewerage systems are breaking down.

This is not a prediction; this is already happening. In 2022 renters had to be evacuated from the red brick towers in Elgin Street in Carlton after the sewer stacks completely failed – a biohazard risk for the residents. They had to be evacuated immediately. We know that renters have repeatedly expressed concerns about these and other issues in their towers, and as Mr Batchelor said, in one such instance the concrete was literally falling off the wall. We cannot ignore these issues, and we must act now.

The problem when it comes to it is that every single viable solution to this issue involves the relocation of residents. We have seen and we have had much discussion around various alternative proposals, such as the OFFICE proposal, which claims that relocations under its refurbishment program can be completely avoided. They claim in fact that the government can save hundreds of millions of dollars in relocation costs over the entirety of the program, and they also claim that there will be no health and wellbeing impacts through relocation under their plan. But what they do not discuss is that their proposal means that residents have to continue living in these towers whilst they are under reconstruction. The sorts of issues that would require refurbishment are not a quick lick of paint or a few new door hinges and things like that here and there; they are major structural works that need to be done. Advocates of this report are effectively saying that it is appropriate for residents, for their health and wellbeing, to be living in these ongoing major construction sites for potentially years on end. The alternative, as discussed in the OFFICE report, is that an entire tower could be decanted and refurbished. Now, my understanding of ‘decanted’ is that it would plainly mean relocations – the same issue that is apparently the reason why we cannot be rebuilding these towers properly.

Rebuilding these towers properly, though, is a better solution because it provides homes that are of that highest possible standard of accessibility, of amenity, of temperature and of comfort. All these issues that are too commonplace in the existing towers are things that most Victorian residents would not countenance living with for any sensible stretch of time. All these are things that public housing and social housing tenants deserve and that will be delivered by the new towers, and they will be delivered with a major increase in housing capacity, including a minimum 10 per cent uplift in social housing on these sites. In the first projects, which we are already seeing underway, that percentage is well and truly exceeded.

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:18): I stand to also speak on this motion, having been part of the public hearings on housing. I have to say in my area what concerns me is that I see so many people without somewhere to live. I see women with their families in cars having fled domestic violence, I see young people having to leave their homes for a number of reasons and I see people sleeping out in cardboard boxes. We do not have to go very far, if we are very honest and open our eyes out here in the city on a sitting week, because just up the road there are plenty of people sleeping in between shops and outside the fronts of shops on their sleeping bags or whatever has been provided to them – on a mat, if they are lucky, or on a bit of cardboard – to protect them from the cold, between the concrete and themselves. When I hear about any issues to do with public housing, I feel quite emotional, because I know how much people are suffering.

It bothers me. If there is nothing to hide, then why would the government be suppressing documents?

If there is nothing to hide about the finances, then there should be open and transparent governance, and we do not have that with this government. When we are requesting documents that can actually help us to make informed decisions and provide informed reports, we need to have the evidence to provide the evidence-based information. We need to have that information freely accessible to the public in the reports and not supressed from them.

Motion agreed to.