Tuesday, 2 December 2025

 Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (13:14): Pursuant to standing order 23.22, I table the report on the inquiry into the redevelopment of Melbourne’s public housing towers, including appendices, extracts of proceedings and a minority report, from the Legal and Social Issues committee, and I present the transcripts of evidence. I move:

That the transcripts of evidence be tabled and the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Joe McCRACKEN: I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

I am pleased to table the report of the inquiry into the redevelopment of Melbourne’s public housing towers. At the outset I want to thank my colleagues from across the political divide on the committee. No political party has a majority on this committee, so it was really encouraging to work with all members of this chamber that are represented on the committee, all the parties, to put forward a good report. I want to also acknowledge the secretariat staff, who did such a great job, particularly in organising a number of hearings that were onsite at the towers themselves. I would also like to thank the submitters and the witnesses for their participation in this process. It was clear that for a large proportion of submitters communication was a key issue, particularly when Homes Victoria engaged on relocations. Trauma, fear, anxiety and distress were elements experienced in particular for vulnerable groups, such as people from different language groups or ethnicity groups.

It was a challenging inquiry, it is fair to say, because information was not exactly forthcoming from the government. On a number of occasions information was sought. The government made a claim of executive privilege on over 140 documents, with only 12 provided in part or full. We were trying to answer one simple question: should the government have demolished and rebuilt the towers, or were other options viable? Without access to key documents such as engineering reports, condition reports and a robust cost–benefit analysis, it becomes very difficult to understand why the government chose their course of action as opposed to the other options that could have been available. It has become even more difficult to understand why they sought to keep that information away from the public – perhaps to avoid scrutiny and accountability? The government can answer those questions. Numerous witnesses appeared calling for the release of documents. If the government is happy to make decisions, they should have been comfortable justifying those decisions with evidence before the inquiry. Unfortunately, this inquiry could have achieved so much more had there been cooperation.

The towers are not just homes; they are communities full of people – people from all walks of life, people whose experiences should be valued, considered and used to inform best practice. I thank those people who came forward – brave people – particularly tower residents for bravely telling their story and explaining their experiences. There are many, many lessons for the government to consider, and let us hope those lessons are heeded and not repeated. I commend the report to the house.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (13:17): I am pleased to speak on this committee report. It was an opportunity to genuinely engage with evidence and with residents about the future of these towers. Built 60 years ago with an expected lifespan of 50 years, we need a plan to deal with them. Instead the majority report from the Greens and the Liberals rejected the evidence that had been presented, silenced residents’ voices who did not agree with them and failed in our collective responsibility to come to a considered view about what we should do here.

We need a plan to replace these towers. We had evidence of failing sewer stacks and mould in walls caused by sewage; evidence of concrete cancer; evidence of the structural challenges that are faced due to the unique construction and design of these towers that stand them apart from other high-rise buildings in Melbourne; evidence about ceiling heights being too low for modification; and evidence that 95 per cent of the lifts in these towers cannot fit a stretcher, which means that if residents call an ambulance they cannot be properly cared for. There are fire safety risks. The units are too hot in summer and too cold in winter. The electrical systems do not meet residents’ needs, and there is a failure to meet disability standards. That was in the material that was presented to the committee, which unfortunately some people just did not read.

We need better engagement and better consultation – that was very clear – because there is misinformation about these plans being spread around the towers. We need to be clearer about the rights of renters as they return, and we need to address the significant disadvantages that public housing in this state faces because of the operation of Commonwealth laws, the public housing penalty.

The last thing I want to mention is there was, disturbingly, a breach of committee privilege in relation to the tabling of this report, where details of the plans to table this report were leaked to members of the Greens in the other place. It is a concern when committees cannot undertake this process. I commend the report to the house.

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (13:19): That is pretty rich coming from those on this side of the table. Because I only have 2 minutes, I want to quickly thank the Chair for chairing this inquiry with compassion and recognition of the incredible power imbalances that exist between public housing residents and powerful government institutions.

I want to thank the secretariat and also those that worked on this for their support and flexibility. I want to thank my colleagues that went on the journey. At times there were strong opposing views, but I think that is to be expected with the lack of transparency and accountability that we have heard, with questions on how this government arrived at their decision to demolish all 44 public housing towers. I want to mostly give my heartfelt thanks to the public housing residents across all 44 estates, a community that built these estates and survived incessant government neglect.

First of all, we heard from many public housing residents, but I want to particularly mention Reem Yehdego of the 33 Alfred Street towers, who spoke powerfully about how she would not be the woman that she is today, grounded in principles of care, compassion and justice, without the support of her public housing community. She went on to share, and those on this side of the chamber might want to listen to this:

When governments tear down housing without care, without listening and without a commitment to building something just, they are not just removing buildings, they are cutting into the roots of our communities.

That is powerful stuff to listen to, coming directly from public housing residents. We want to talk about silencing; there was no silencing here. Public housing residents turned up in their droves during the five public housing hearings to talk about their experiences, and it was not easy for them to talk and speak in front of members of Parliament.

I want to quickly end with recommendation 7, that it is important that the Victorian government halt all work associated with the redevelopment program. (Time expired)

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (13:21): I think that Mr Batchelor’s short contribution then just about summarised the frustration we were up against with this inquiry. Members of the government are talking about misinformation that is being spread around when it is their government that has refused to give the 144 documents that actually hold the information that we are looking for. My message here is: if you want to get rid of misinformation, please uncover the truth and actually provide the documents we are after. However, this was a very interesting inquiry. What we were trying to find out was why it is that 44 public housing towers are being demolished, and we were up against brick wall after brick wall, a protection racket from the government and from the departments. I just think that it is time to give up that protection racket and give us the documents that we are after, and the questions will be answered.

However, the inquiry was incredible. We heard from many stressed and distressed residents of housing who are getting their communities and their lives pretty much up-ended with few answers. Some of them spoke about how they found out about this decision through the media. Others said they found out about this decision because a leaflet had been popped underneath their door. Others said that a young kid knocked on their door and said, ‘The tower’s going to be demolished,’ and they were not able to provide any information as to when, why, how and what would happen.

This has been an extraordinary failure by the government, and it has just been so offensive that it has been covered up by what I believe is the inappropriate use of executive privilege. In fact finding 1 says that the Victorian government has failed to comply with Legislative Council standing order 10.03 and requests under Legislative Council standing order 23.16.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (13:23): I am also pleased to make a few comments on this report tabled today by the Legal and Social Issues Committee. I would also like to thank all colleagues on the committee, the staff in particular, and everyone who came and appeared as a witness before the inquiry. What you will see from this report and indeed from the extracted proceedings is a Liberal–Greens majority report once again seeking to oppose the development of new housing in Victoria. You can see this in many aspects, and indeed one of the more shocking aspects is where we tried to impart some detail into the report about some of the reasons why there is an uptake of the community housing model as opposed to the public housing model in some cases – that being the impacts of the GST settings for different types of developments and the impacts of Commonwealth rent assistance on these as well. Going to perhaps some of the possible reasons as to why different approaches have been taken, we saw that evidence blocked and denied and voted against. All of that evidence was voted against by at least one member of the Liberal Party and by the Greens across the board. It was very disappointing that you sought to ignore that evidence, just as you sought to ignore the evidence that literally was above our heads in the hearing room when we were in the South Yarra public towers, when a witness was asked if there was any evidence that they could give and they pointed right above our heads.

There is also a deep misunderstanding of executive privilege. Noting Dr Heath’s comments just now, indeed the extract of proceedings will show that the Liberal–Greens majority voted against amendments to take section 19 out of that, because section 19 actually completely undermines the argument that they are trying to make and makes the argument that we were making.

Renee Heath: On a point of order, President, I do not think the member is allowed to speak about how people voted and what happened in deliberations.

The PRESIDENT: It is publicly in the report.

Michael GALEA: It just goes to show their lack of understanding of the things that they were voting for by knocking that back and then, with the embarrassing changes we have seen at the end of the report, it having to be changed after all. I am also concerned about privilege, but I also refer members to our minority report, which outlines ways in which Homes Victoria can improve its practices in future.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (13:26): I also rise to speak on the tabling of this important report into the proposed redevelopment of Melbourne’s public housing towers or – let us call it what it really is – the demolition and destruction of the public housing towers across our city. It was noted by one of the government MPs during the hearings that the towers in question are not located in the electorate I represent, being the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. But I want to be clear: this is a statewide issue. This is an issue that anyone who cares about looking after vulnerable members of our community should care about – people who want to see their communities protected.

On a more personal level, I want to share part of what brings me to this conversation. Something I have not talked about before in this place is that my mother grew up in public housing in my electorate, in housing commission flats purchased following the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games, located in West Heidelberg in an area still referred to as Olympic Village, as it was originally used to house athletes. By 1960 the Heidelberg estate, which absorbed the Olympic Village, was actually the state’s largest public housing portfolio, with more than 4300 dwellings. Heidelberg West was described as a ‘showcase of modern Australia’ and ‘emblematic of a deep-seated belief in the role of government as an agent of social change’. The estate also incorporated the Bell-Bardia and Tarakan estates, both of which were earmarked for inclusion in stage 1 of the state’s public housing renewal program in 2017 under the ground lease model. I have had it confirmed by the Minister for Housing and Building that at the Tarakan estate none of the newly constructed dwellings of the former housing site are public housing, and it was confirmed in question time in October last year there will be no public homes constructed at Bell-Bardia estate when it is eventually completed in what looks like 10 years after it was first demolished.

As at February this year it has been reported that in the former Heidelberg estate, which was once our state’s biggest public housing estate and a showcase of modern Australia, now only 23 per cent of households still live in social housing. Given this context, given the lack of commitment to new public housing being built at these tower sites, how can this government tell residents that what is proposed is a continuation of and not the final blow to public housing in this state? I commend the secretariat for their work and commend the report to the house.

Motion agreed to.