Wednesday, 17 June 2026

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (15:57): I move:

That this house:

(1)   notes:

(a) on 20 September 2023, the government released Victoria’s housing statement, outlining its intention to demolish Victoria’s 44 high‑rise public housing towers and redevelop the land;

(b) the government commenced relocation of residents in the following three initial tranches of public housing towers:

(i) tranche 1: Carlton, Flemington and North Melbourne;

(ii) tranche 2: South Yarra and Richmond;

(iii) tranche 3: Flemington, Kensington, North Melbourne, Prahran, St Kilda and Albert Park – all housing residents aged over 55;

(2)   pursuant to section 16 of the Ombudsman Act 1973, refers the following matters to the Ombudsman for investigation and report:

(a) the impact on residents at the first three tranches of public housing to be demolished of the project to date, including but not limited to:

(i) moving from homes owned and managed by the government (public housing) to homes managed by not-for-profit agencies (community housing), including how this affects rental and utility payments and other costs such as utilities, access to enforceable, transparent and protective rental policies and security of tenure, as well as residents’ mental, social and physical wellbeing;

(ii) the adequacy of the homes offered to the residents required to relocate, including location, general standard, and suitability of the homes to each resident’s unique housing requirements and any impacts from the government’s reliance on using privately owned housing to relocate residents (‘head-leasing’ arrangements);

(iii) the outcomes for residents who refuse homes offered for relocation;

(iv) the impact on residents living in towers where the majority of the other residents have relocated;

(v) the practices and methods of contact employed by the government, Homes Victoria, agencies and relocation staff to secure relocation, and whether these are compatible with the human rights of the residents, which could include but is not limited to:

(A)   communication and confusion around residents’ ‘right to return’;

(B)   communication around the differences between community and public housing;

(C)   limiting the number of homes offered for relocation;

(D)   consequences communicated to residents should they not agree to relocate or accept offers;

(b) the specific impacts on elderly public housing residents in tranche 3, with regards to paragraph (2)(a);

(c) the timeliness and adequacy of the government’s maintenance of all 44 public housing towers, particularly in comparing the periods before and after the announcement on 20 September 2023 and the ongoing impact on residents;

(d) whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the demolition of the public housing towers is the best course of action; and

(3)   requires the Clerk to write to the Victorian Ombudsman to convey the terms of this resolution.

I am pleased to rise to speak to motion 1485 in my name. I am proud to speak to this important motion, a referral to the Victorian Ombudsman to investigate and report on the impact of the state government’s decision to demolish Victoria’s public housing towers with regard to its impact on current tower residents as well as those already forced to relocate.

In his last major act as Premier, on 20 September 2023 Dan Andrews held a media conference at the North Melbourne public housing estate to announce the state government’s intention to demolish all 44 high-rise public housing towers and redevelop the land. But what for me was the most telling thing about that announcement was not the actual policy being announced but more who was invited to be present at the Premier’s announcement, because you would normally expect that the most important people and stakeholders regarding an announcement about the redevelopment of public housing land would be the public housing residents who currently live there or, if not them, then maybe the record numbers of those who are homeless or waiting for social housing in Victoria under state Labor. But these were not the people that Labor and the Premier invited to this announcement. Instead of those currently living in or desperately waiting for public housing, Labor actually invited all of the commercial property industry players: the Housing Industry Association, Master Builders Victoria, the Property Council Australia and the Urban Development Institute of Australia.

While this media conference was being held on public housing land, this was not an announcement about reducing the social housing waiting list, increasing the shockingly low proportion of social housing in Victoria or improving the health and wellbeing of those living in public or social housing. What this was actually about was selling off public land to the for-profit property sector, the developers and those whose primary objective is to see property prices and their own corporate profits rise as high as possible. That is why it was the property developers, not the residents, that were invited to the announcement. In fact we learned later that public housing residents at North Melbourne or any of the other towers had not even been afforded prior notice by the government that their homes were to be demolished and they were all to be relocated, even while the Premier was laughing and posing with property developers in front of the media pack at the announcement just below them. What a truly revolting display of disrespect and disregard by a state government towards the lives and human dignity of some of the most vulnerable and powerless members of the Victorian community. But it said everything we needed to know about this Labor government’s priorities, because this no longer is a government that stands up for traditional Labor values of social justice. It no longer stands up for workers; in fact it works with the Liberals to water down WorkCover protections for those injured at work. It no longer stands for public education in state schools; it has ripped $2.4 billion of Gonski funding from them. It no longer stands for quality public services; it has privatised VicRoads, the land titles office and now, it seems, most of public housing. It no longer stands for public health; it plans to abolish our only public health agency, VicHealth. But most of all it no longer stands up for the powerless, the less wealthy and the most vulnerable against the big vested interests: the gambling industry, the property industry, the big banks and the billionaires. As we have seen this week, it actually gives the most powerful and wealthy all of the benefits of government, whether they be stamp duty concessions for multimillion-dollar penthouses or 40-year leases on public housing land. And in return, it tells all of those who are really struggling just to get by that this discredited form of drip-down economics that overwhelmingly favours those at the very top may leave a tiny morsel of help behind for them.

This Labor government repeatedly treats public housing residents with unapologetic contempt and disdain, as we saw with the lockdown of the North Melbourne housing tower during COVID and then again with Dan Andrews’s housing announcement at the same location in 2023. The Legal and Social Issues Committee’s inquiry into the redevelopment of Melbourne’s public housing towers heard from all the groups that Labor completely ignored when it rushed into this announcement with the property developers. We heard from community legal centres, housing experts, human rights experts, peak bodies and advocacy groups, but most importantly we heard directly from the public housing residents. The undeniable testimonies made it clear: pressing ahead with the demolition and privatisation of public housing towers was and continues to be a disastrous plan for residents that this government should urgently reconsider. The committee made 21 recommendations based on overwhelming evidence from these stakeholders, which, true to form, the Labor government arrogantly mostly dismissed, supporting just four recommendations in full.

When a government fails to listen to the people whose lives it impacts, it is the job of all non-government members of this place, along with the responsible media and our integrity agencies, to draw attention to it – to shine a light on what is really going on. This referral charges the Ombudsman to investigate and report on how the government’s decision to demolish public housing and relocate residents has impacted and continues to impact the lives of residents living in the towers as well as those who have been forced to relocate. It goes beyond what was looked at by the Legal and Social Issues Committee – for example, the specific impact on elderly residents living in the third tranche of public housing to be demolished as well as the effects of the announcement on the already appalling levels of maintenance at all tower sites generally. This Labor government has disrespected and ignored residents living in public housing. It is our job to afford them the respect they deserve by ensuring that their voices and stories are heard when determining the future of the public housing towers. I commend the motion and this referral to the house.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:04): On the motion brought about by the Greens, right from the beginning of my contribution I just want to say that this is a clear-cut case of manufactured fear and circulation of widespread misinformation. When a Labor government actually gets on with the hard work of delivering homes for vulnerable people, it is quite telling that the first instinct of some is to move motions that entirely – well, they get this thing stuck in a lengthy investigation.

To understand why this motion is misguided, we have to look at the undeniable reality of these buildings and the actual physical make-up of these sites. On 20 September 2023 this government released Victoria’s Housing Statement and announced the largest ever urban renewal project in Australia. We announced our firm intention to demolish and redevelop all 44 of Melbourne’s ageing public high-rise towers. This is not just about replacing old buildings; this is about doing significantly more for the community. These buildings are now more than 60 years old – older than a lot of people in this place. They were originally built with an expected life span of only 50 years, meaning that they have well and truly exceeded that, and not just by a little bit. The physical reality of these structures is staring at us right in the face. They completely fail modern standards when it comes to noise, sustainability, waste management, ventilation, fire safety, extreme heat resilience and seismic safety. That is an extraordinarily long list, and disability access in these buildings is entirely noncompliant, as well as emergency services, which I have not also listed on here. The plumbing and the sewerage systems are literally breaking down as we speak.

The renters living in these towers have told us directly that the safety and security situation they face on a daily basis is unacceptable. The number of constituents that have raised this shows me that it is not pretend; they are families that desperately need up-to-scratch housing. Yet the Greens would rather we not say any of this out loud. They conveniently leave out crucial facts from their public campaigns, like how the internal structures and concrete panels inside these towers simply cannot be moved. There are walls, doorways and corridors that cannot be modified no matter how hard you try. The ceiling heights are simply too low to meet modern standards. These are not just little chips that can be painted over; these are hard physical limits that cannot be overcome. These buildings can only be replaced. That is not a political choice; it is a cold, hard engineering reality. As representatives that care about the people living in these towers, especially since so many of them fall within my electorate, we must be completely honest about these facts.

We saw this denial of reality play out during the recent Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into the redevelopment of Melbourne’s public housing towers. The evidence that the committee sat through, including five full days of hearings and 807 submissions, detailed really distressing evidence about failing sewers, mould in the walls caused by leaking sewerage and concrete cancer, but somehow that was left out of the report. Now, suddenly, they want an Ombudsman investigation into whether the government is doing enough for the residents of those exact same towers.

There is a lot of talk about retrofitting as some sort of magic silver bullet. I have heard it now time and time again, but every viable solution, including the Greens’ preferred retrofit option, requires relocating residents – every single one of them. I believe firmly in my heart that a person living with a disability on the 12th floor should not be subject to staying in a building where the lifts have to be turned off because it is the preferred option of the Greens. My view is that people with a disability, people with access needs and people that have genuine health concerns need to be in a place that is fit and right for them – every single one of them.

The only question we have to answer is where those residents will go when the work is done – plain and simple. Our program moves them into better homes, whereas the alternatives would have them living in a live construction site for half a decade. These are old folks; these are families and people living with some pretty significant trauma and hardship. I have lived beside a construction site at a time in my life, and frankly, it was hell, and I am surely not going to wish that on anybody. It in no way respects the rights of residents to the quiet enjoyment of their home. But rather than being honest about these engineering constraints, because that is what they are, the Greens will say one thing and do another. They will tell the social media followers that the residents of these towers are desperate to stay. Yet since January last year nearly 15 per cent of all correspondence sent to the Minister for Housing and Building from Greens members has been on behalf of constituents wanting to relocate from the towers. They asked for relocations because they know exactly what this government knows: these towers are no longer fit for purpose. Whilst that is 15 per cent that have gone from Greens members to the minister for housing, I did not have the good fortune of taking the time to calculate what my constituents are telling me when they come to me, but I will tell you what I know to be true from the vast amounts of correspondence that I have dealt with, and that is that they are seeking relocation. They are seeking to live in a place that is fit for their aspirations for their home and their aspirations for their family, and these towers are no longer fit for that purpose. They have reached the end of their useful life, and no amount of retrofitting is going to fix that.

It even gets worse when you look at the actions of the volunteers on the ground. I have heard stories from people that have heard deliberate misinformation being spread. They have been telling vulnerable residents that they are going to become homeless, and that includes residents that literally are about, I do not know, 200 metres from my office. They come in time and time again telling me about misinformation, and I have reassured them myself and had the good fortune of having the now former minister for housing come along and say straight to them, ‘No, you will not be left out on the streets because of this.’ This is misinformation, and frankly, a lot of it is lies. They have been telling people that the towers will be demolished while people are still living inside them. That was one of the most frightening ones. I could not believe that when folks came to my door, almost in tears about that, asking if the government was going to kick them to the kerb and if they would need to fend for themselves. This is a morbid, disgraceful scare campaign that is leaving some of our most vulnerable truly terrified.

On the relocation process, as this motion seeks to investigate, the government has commenced relocation of residents in three initial tranches: (1) Carlton, Flemington and North Melbourne; (2) South Yarra and Richmond; and (3) Flemington, Kensington, North Melbourne, Prahran, St Kilda and Albert Park. I am going to say to this chamber what the housing minister said directly to housing residents: no renter will be made homeless due to the high-rise redevelopment program – not a single one. That was said directly to renters, directly in their community and directly in their homes. When residents move, they are fully supported. Their rent settings stay exactly the same. No resident pays more. Even if they transition into community housing, they receive support tailored for their health, community, cultural, accessibility and location needs. They have the ability to move to the same building or floor as their neighbours if they choose to do so. I heard the minister say that to residents in Kensington. ‘I like my neighbour, who has been my neighbour for 12 years, and we help each other out. Can we keep that going?’ ‘Absolutely, yes’, said the minister. If they wish to come back, they absolutely have a guaranteed right of return to the redeveloped towers when the new homes are built, and Homes Victoria arranges the movers and pays all relocation costs.

We are focused on supporting older residents in tranche 3, which is for residents over the age of 55. Residents across these specific sites will be supported to carefully move over a two-year period, which will include support through a dedicated buddy program called Hand in Hand. I am enormously thankful to the workers who have been supporting so many of our older residents during this time. What they will find are new homes that will be close to public transport and easier to heat and easier to cool, with much-improved security, lighting and ventilation – places that I know so many of them need, and they are very much looking forward to it, if the traffic through my office is anything to go by. Victorians, and especially the communities that live in these towers, deserve representatives who back and build public housing not just for the theatrics for Instagram reels.

 Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (16:15): I am pleased to rise to talk to Ms Gray-Barberio’s motion. I thank her for bringing it to the chamber, because it is an important matter and justice for the residents of the housing towers is important. The issue was obviously more broadly discussed in the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s inquiry into this matter. The report was handed down in December 2025. Twenty-one recommendations and 36 findings came from that inquiry. But one of the most important aspects of that inquiry was to hear directly from those affected by the demolition of the towers. The committee held hearings across a number of the tower sites, and we heard firsthand from residents. I should also note that there were, as has previously been said, 807 submissions to the inquiry. The vast majority of those were from residents of the towers. I do not want to directly quote some of those residents, because some of them put those submissions forward either confidentially or with their names withheld. But concerns were certainly raised about the style of communication received, the timing of that communication and the form of that communication, whether it was verbal, written or public meetings. There was also the manner in which it was delivered, with some evidence suggesting that the first time the residents learned of the demolition of the towers was from a flyer that was put under their apartment doors.

We heard that residents were asked to move away from the communities they love, the communities in and around the towers. They were asked to move to locations sometimes kilometres away from the towers themselves. Many said that due to the significant amount of time that it would take to complete the tower works, they doubted they would be returned back there, despite there being a right to return. I have to say, residents did not seem to have a clear understanding of what the right to return actually meant, how it could be enforced and even if there are any review mechanisms around that process. It was very unclear. At least that is what we heard from the residents.

The impact on residents was explored deeply in chapter 4 of the report, from page 78 onwards. Evidence given from multiple witnesses and submissions talked about severe trauma, mental health concerns, anxiety and separation from community, amongst the plethora of negative impacts on residents, especially those who were elderly or spoke English as a second language. Many who gave evidence suggested that consultation was poor: it did not meet the needs of residents; it did not seek to understand them. That very clearly came through. Many said that it was rushed, which then, unfortunately, led to the creation of rumours and misinformation, and that started a trail of anxiety and fear that circled through the towers. That was certainly explored in depth too, from page 98 onwards in the report.

One of the major challenges in the inquiry was obtaining documents, in particular relating to the justification of the demolition and the rebuild of the towers. We made multiple requests for the documents, including engineers reports and condition reports and also reports like a cost–benefit analysis, which would have helped the committee understand why the government had taken the action that it had decided on – to demolish the towers and do a rebuild. But other stakeholders called for the production of information as well. For example, the Australian Institute of Architects called for the release of geotech engineering reports; structural engineering reports; civil engineering reports about stormwater and drainage; mechanical, electrical, hydraulic and lift engineering reports; fire safety reports; acoustic engineering reports; inclusivity and accessibility reports; hazardous material reports; and building surveying assessments detailing the buildings’ condition. I am going to say it very clearly: those did not come forth to the committee. Finding 9 of the report states, and this is directly from the report:

The Victorian government, including Departments and the Minister, have made it difficult for the Committee to access documents the Government relied on to make the decision to demolish the public housing towers.

Finding 10 of the report says:

Without access to documents the Victorian Government has used to justify the demolition of the public housing towers, it is extremely difficult for the Committee to assess if demolishing the towers was the best option available.

That is directly from the report – a multiparty report, actually, that members of this chamber from the opposition, from the government and from the crossbench were all a part of. The reason why that is important is because during the inquiry there were discussions too about – and it was certainly a term that I had not really heard much about before – planned decline. Essentially, what that means is that it was purported to be a deliberate program of undermaintenance to ensure the towers were not in good condition, and therefore that would justify closing them down. Multiple witnesses gave evidence to that effect, and it is on page 50 of the report. It says:

They have deliberately tried to create ghettos. Then they use the seemingly dilapidated state of the public housing stock, which they have deliberately allowed to deteriorate, as a rationale for dismantling the communities …

Another person said:

The Government has engaged in a managed decline ‘waiting for the places to deteriorate to justify demolition’ …

We also heard from witnesses, including architect professionals, that retrofitting was a viable option. Unfortunately, the committee did not get a chance to look at that because we did not have documents come forth telling us why the government made those decisions – or why not. We did not have the documents there to justify them. The crux of the issue is that it was very difficult to understand why the Victorian government did what they did because we could not see the documents that they relied upon, as opposed to considering other options.

A referral to the Ombudsman to look at the issues identified in this motion might help shine some light on the many issues raised, and indeed it might give some hope to the residents of the towers on their valid concerns that they are valued members of the Victorian community and they matter. I know that some members of the committee – I can certainly talk on my own behalf – were extremely frustrated because it did not appear as though the government were wanting to be transparent in providing information to the committee. If this does get through, I hope that the Ombudsman can find more answers to help piece more of the puzzle together so we can get a clear picture of why this is all here in the first place.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:22): I would also like to speak on motion 1485, put forward by Ms Gray-Barberio and the Greens, on the housing towers relocation. There is a long history of this Parliament looking at the housing towers and things that have happened there, and I would say from the outset I think it is a bit cheeky of the Greens to talk about the housing towers and the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman doing reports on this considering the Greens’ history on this.

What happened during the last term of Parliament was a number of housing towers were locked down in July 2020 at very, very short notice. It was very distressing and traumatic for everyone that was involved in that. People were locked down for an extended period in those towers, and that was later investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s report, which came out in late 2020, found that the human rights of the housing tower residents were breached, for a number of reasons, and the Ombudsman came up with a number of recommendations that this Parliament should consider. Despite this report and these powers that were used at the time during the pandemic – I called for many investigations into human rights breaches during the pandemic; very few of them actually went forward. But Deborah Glass, the Ombudsman at the time, I think was very courageous and did an excellent job of investigating what actually happened there, and she did determine that there were human rights breaches – that the human rights aspects were not considered properly. In fact she determined that not only was there not proper consideration, the human rights charter assessments were in many cases nothing more than a ‘mental process’. And a mental process it was indeed.

Despite this report coming out, on every occasion the Greens proceeded to give the government extensions of these powers, where human rights had clearly been breached – at every opportunity. The Greens were a deciding vote on this; it was not like their vote did not matter. The government relied on three crossbenchers to get through this. Everyone else voted against it. I know the opposition voted against it. I voted against it. Mr Bourman voted against it. We did not think that the government was using these powers well. We were concerned about the chief health officer’s actions, and we were concerned about human rights abuses that were happening in the towers and in other places throughout the state. But as I said, the housing towers were one of the few instances when it was actually investigated. During the pandemic the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 was updated many times for all sorts of reasons. Of course the primary reason was to extend the powers, which were never meant to go for longer than six months, but there were many other additions.

The Libertarian Party put forward an amendment which was to implement one of the Ombudsman’s recommendations from the housing tower lockdown, which was to guarantee meaningful fresh air and exercise for people that are detained under public health and wellbeing orders, and the Greens voted against that. They voted against the Ombudsman’s recommendation from the report. They voted against housing tower residents being given fresh air and exercise if they were detained under those public health and wellbeing orders. So I do not believe for a second the Greens when they say they care about what is happening in these housing towers or that they care about these people. Even after the Ombudsman came out with a report stating very clearly and in exacting detail how their rights were taken away, how their rights were abused, the Greens nevertheless continued support for the emergency powers right up until the pandemic bill came in, in late 2021, I think, from memory. So I do not take it seriously. The Greens did not support a recommendation from the Ombudsman, a very sensible recommendation that frankly I was shocked that anyone would oppose. The opposition, to their credit, did support that amendment, but the Greens did not support it. The government did not support it. I do not know why. Maybe they can explain now why they opposed fresh air and exercise for people detained under public health and wellbeing orders. Nevertheless that was a recommendation of the Ombudsman, and to say now, ‘We want the Ombudsman to do another report, and maybe we’ll listen to the Ombudsman or maybe we won’t this time’ – I do not know, but I do not take it seriously. Therefore the Libertarian Party will not be supporting this referral.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:27): I am pleased to rise to speak on motion 1485, which has been brought to us by Ms Gray-Barberio today, and welcome the opportunity to speak on it. This is something that we have canvassed many times in this place. I will probably not be able to get through everything I wish to say, but I will be able to share some brief comments and at the outset also acknowledge the very powerful remarks of my colleague Ms Watt and her very detailed contribution as to exactly why the government is making the most significant investment in our social housing sector in our state’s history. It is because of the state of these towers – because of the evidence that our committee, the Legal and Social Issues Committee, saw of concrete cancer causing parts of the building to literally fall off the walls, of showers that are raised too high and are inaccessible to anyone who is in a wheelchair, of the doors that are too narrow and of the lifts that are simply not capable of fitting in stretchers. These are but a few –

Ann-Marie Hermans interjected.

Michael GALEA: We saw it. We saw this.

Ann-Marie Hermans interjected.

Michael GALEA: I am not sure if you were there at the site visit, Ann-Marie, on the day that we saw that, certainly in the red brick towers.

Ann-Marie Hermans interjected.

Michael GALEA: If you were there, you would have seen the narrow doors and the lifts that do not fit stretchers, you would have seen the shower basins that were several centimetres high off the ground, already with a low ceiling, and you would have seen the fact that people with a wheelchair would not have been able to access them. If you have seen this with your own eyes, it is all the more staggering that you come into this place and you deny the rights of all Victorians to live in housing that is safe and secure, and it is a shocking indictment on your party, frankly.

Ann-Marie Hermans interjected.

Michael GALEA: It is literally what we saw. We had the opportunity to visit these towers. We visited multiple towers and the red brick tower on Elgin Street. You would have seen it. We did not go into the room where there was a major sewer fault that caused a whole floor to be flooded with sewage. We did not see that, but we walked past the door. We walked up the narrow staircase and down the narrow staircase that is not compliant, that in an emergency would potentially cause an issue. Those are the things that we did see. If you were there, Mrs Hermans – I do not recall you being there on that day, but I will take your word for it that you were there – you would have seen the same things that we saw. It makes it all the more extraordinary that you did not take that opportunity – I was not going to dwell on this point – to look at something and say, ‘That’s fine. We could just renovate that or paint that. That’ll be fine.’ It is a complete, chronic misunderstanding of the state of these towers. Even those in the Greens who are opposed to the approach that we are taking want the towers –

Ann-Marie Hermans interjected.

Michael GALEA: You would live in one? Well, the overwhelming majority of these residents have made very clear that they do not wish to live in these towers, which is why the new-build accommodation and the new housing that are being provided to them have been so enthusiastically taken up – not by all but by the majority. The majority have, as Ms Watt said in her contribution. If you think that is an acceptable way for any Victorian to live, then I have even graver fears about what it might look like if your lot are ever allowed the chance to be in government, because the conditions that we saw were in many cases deplorable. The faults and issues are structural; these are not things that we can just renovate. You cannot make floors higher. You cannot rebuild the whole building from the inside out without impacting the residents that are there. That goes to the other point that Ms Watt was making: to keep residents in these towers, if you were to try and do some alternative solution and rebuild them, would be so extraordinarily disruptive – and I do not know how it would be actually possible to do that without having a dramatic effect – not just on the amenity but on the health and safety of those residents living in the towers.

We heard lots of evidence in this inquiry from many people with many different views, and I acknowledge that and I appreciate everyone who came and spoke to us. I do want to share one piece of evidence that we received from the South Yarra Public Tenants Association in a hearing. This hearing, mind you, for the committee’s benefit was held not in the lavish surroundings of this chamber or in one of the many committee rooms on this precinct; this was held on the ground floor of one of the housing towers in Malvern Road in South Yarra. We were very grateful to have people come and speak to us, including the head of the South Yarra Public Tenants Association. It was put to the witness by a Greens member: ‘Have you got evidence that they are structurally unsound?’ The answer was: ‘Yes.’ ‘Evidence that you can provide to the committee?’ The witness responded by pointing at the ceiling right above our heads. It was not this beautiful, elaborate ceiling that we are privileged to be standing under today; it was the ceiling in this tower, the ceiling that residents of these towers are having as their lived reality every day. She said, ‘If you look just at the back in that square little tower on the ceiling, it is all the things from the water from the pipes – all the things. That is something coming from the sewerage and from other places. The Department of Families, Fairness and Housing have tried to fix that hundreds of times, and sometimes the water keeps on running.’ So I do understand that they cannot keep on fixing that when it is infeasible. They need to go.

In terms of the approach that the government is taking, there are teams deployed. We did hear evidence from Homes Victoria about the way in which they are engaging with the residents, trying to be responsive in different languages and meeting people where they are. They acknowledged to us that they learned lessons from the first tranche, and they will be deploying those lessons in ongoing tranches, too.

I do have some issue with the commentary that has been put forward by a couple of members already with their critique of the initial announcement, specifically to the point of attacking the government for not speaking to these residents individually first. I do not know how you can realistically do that. I do not know how you could realistically go door to door and talk to every person, knowing that some will not be home and knowing that you will not get everyone at once. If you do that before any major announcement, what is going to happen is that people are going to talk. Naturally, it is what we do. Then people are going to hear things and are going to say, ‘Well, why has that person been spoken to and not me?’ even though they might be next. Members who have brought this forward as a complaint have not been able to actually answer how they would do that differently and how they would engage the residents in a different way. I just make that point, because if you are saying that the best way to go is to start door to door and talk to people one on one, yes, those are important things to do. But if that is the first point of contact, you would be just creating an environment where rumours spread and people are scared. The government acknowledged in the inquiry – that is, Homes Victoria acknowledged – that there were lessons that they learned from that. But to suggest that it is just fine and how dare we do this without talking to every single person first – how? Tell us how.

Recommendations in this report have also been referred to by Ms Gray-Barberio. I would also draw the chamber’s attention to some recommendations that were put forward by Mr Batchelor and me that were actually rejected by the committee. The question was being put by many witnesses as to why this mix and why the emphasis on community housing as opposed to public housing. Putting aside the argument for a moment and the demonisation that has occurred against many in the non-profit community housing sector, there was very, very clear evidence to the committee of one reason why governments across the nation may wish to prioritise community housing over public housing, and that is the GST penalty. The federal government charges GST on public housing new builds. It does not charge that on community building. That is a 10 per cent penalty on any public housing project – a 10 per cent difference in fact in the amount of housing that you can build with the same amount of money. This was a relatively straightforward point, I would have thought. It is not a statement saying that this explains it and this is all okay. It is just saying that this is a finding. It was put forward by the Labor members of the committee, as can be seen in the evidence of proceedings. It was supported indeed by Labor members, by the Legalise Cannabis Victoria member and by two of the Liberal members, but astoundingly, two members, Ms Gray-Barberio and Mrs Hermans, saw fit to deny that.

Ann-Marie Hermans interjected.

Michael GALEA: You denied the fact that there is a GST disparity. It is taxation law. I do not know how you can deny that. It is a finding that we proposed. I am not sure if you are listening to me, but I would encourage you, if you are going to shout out in the chamber, to actually follow the conversation on the debate that we are having. It is a simple fact of GST law. But even that fact – one clue as to how we might actually address this, how we might actually talk to the Commonwealth about the structural changes that we might need to make – for some who are so blinkered as to go into a tower and see all those issues and say ‘It’s fine; I would live in there’ is the epitome of ignorance, and it is – (Time expired)

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:37): Melbourne’s public housing towers were built in the Bolte era, but they are going to be demolished in the Allan–Carroll era. Isn’t that ironic when just today the former minister for housing Minister Shing said that they build and we destroy? That is what she was saying; however, her statements do not seem to be evidence based. When the Allan Labor government made the decision to retire the 45 housing towers across Victoria, the smallest amount that they can do for the taxpayers is –

Harriet Shing interjected.

Renee HEATH: Did I say 45? My apologies. It is 44; I have got written here ‘44’. That is a win for you there, Ms Shing – well done. So if they are going to do that, the least they can do is explain to the community why, and the easiest, most straightforward way, the most transparent way, is by providing documents. Yet what they have failed to do, and you will see it in the report, is regardless of the fact that this house ordered those documents – and we have a right to do that under constitutional law – they did not do that. They provided 12 documents and they withheld 146. Then we saw a good snapshot today of what it is like when the first speaker from the government, Ms Watt, got up and straightaway started saying how Ms Gray-Barberio is just peddling misinformation. Our same argument stands that there would not be any misinformation if you did what you were meant to do and you provided the 146 documents that you were withholding. Regardless, you have not.

Then we went and spent a lot of taxpayer dollars and more time, more resources and more energy on an inquiry. Once again, the inquiry, which I was on, requested documents, and once again they were denied by the Allan Labor government. This was extremely frustrating, because for me it was in that moment in the committee that I realised how fragile democracy is. When a government think they are so above the law that they can just withhold what they want and tell us what they want – and in the process accuse other people of misinformation when there is information that they are sitting on and refusing to release – it is unbelievable.

There is another thing they should have done. They should have actually acknowledged the people that lived there. I have got a few things to read from people that did live in these public housing towers. One wrote:

Having lived in many suburbs of Melbourne, Flemington is by far the place with the most community spirit of anywhere I have experienced. It is a place where you know your neighbours and feel safe to talk to people on the street. The residents of the housing towers are an integral part of our close‑knit, multicultural community in Flemington. I often walk through the park and community areas surrounding the towers and it is always full of families, kids playing sport, and neighbours catching up with one another.

There are plenty of these sorts of testimonials about how much this is part of their community. This is what they were told. They are not my words; these are words of witnesses. But there was a significant amount of evidence to suggest that there was not effective consultation with the residents of the public housing towers. Here is a quote:

A piece of paper under the door. You go there and there is no interpreter. They just say, ‘Oh, this is where you’re going to move. This is where you’re going to – you have two choices. If you don’t do it, then we’re going to evict you in some way.’

That was a witness telling us that. Those are not our words, not the words of the Greens and not the words, like I said, of a think tank but a witness. Here is another one:

… when they first moved people over to Bangs Street, people from non-English-speaking backgrounds did not know they were going to community housing, did not know it was a three-year contract. They were not told anything, because that was very early on.

There have been a few failures here from the government in how this has been handled, but central to our inquiry was the question: is demolition the only option or can there be other options? We all have our individual perceptions, I guess. I think it is obvious to see that these towers are not in the best condition, but what I also want to know is why, if the 146 documents back up what the government are pushing, they do not just show them to us. I went in very ambivalent to the inquiry. I just thought, ‘Well, you know what, I actually don’t have an opinion on this – I really don’t. I’m here to learn. I’m here to listen.’

What was staggering was the way that we were treated, particularly by the former minister for housing. I am just going to give you a few examples from there. The first one was when she was questioned by Ms Gray-Barberio:

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: … How can the public believe the government, Minister, has made the best economical decision with taxpayer money and public land if the government only released 12 of the 158 documents it has detailing this plan?

Minister SHING: The best use of taxpayer money, Ms Gray-Barberio, relates to meeting our obligations to providing people with safe, secure and dignified housing.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, would you agree that involves transparency?

Harriet SHING: I might just continue my answer, if I may.

She just completely dismissed it every time. Here is another example at a different time:

The CHAIR: I will say this again, Minister: we do not have that evidence.

Harriet SHING: It is constant, Mr McCracken.

The CHAIR: You talk about going through the building, but I am looking for an engineer’s report that justifies your government’s decision …

It goes on – again blocked. Then there is a third example:

The CHAIR: You have asserted that the towers have exceeded their operational life, but we are lacking evidence of that. So we would like something for you to justify that that is actually the case.

Harriet SHING: They were built between 68 and 75.

The CHAIR: I know when they were built. I am asking for an engineer’s report.

Renee HEATH: Not your opinion.

Harriet SHING: They had a lifespan of 50 years. These are not opinions; they are facts.

It was just staggering that we were blocked every step of the way. It was entirely frustrating. I found it so hard that when we were on a committee we were not given the information that the government was sitting on. So you make your own conclusions, and from that you are accused of misinformation. Section 19 of the Constitution Act 1975 affirms this house’s authority to request documents, but no, the government still would not provide them. The committee asked for them again – again refused. I was really staggered by the arrogance of this government that thinks they are above the law and above any standing order. For this reason, I am very happy to see it referred to the Ombudsman.

What I hope is that this government holds some regard somewhere within themselves for an authority other than their own. That is what I hope we will see. This is what it needs: it needs to be referred to the Ombudsman. A committee was not enough. A committee would have been enough if they had had enough respect for democracy and the process – if they came to it with integrity and with openness and provided the information that these documents contain. I do not know what is in them that is so secretive. I have no idea what it could be. I see that these towers have some serious issues – I absolutely see that. But what is in those documents? What is it that you are withholding from us? So we are left to go with either the words of the former minister Ms Shing or a gut feel. I tell you what, when a government shouts you down, when department heads are sent in and say, ‘You do know that I’m not allowed to answer your questions’ and read a statement rather than answering questions – this happened; you can go and look at the transcripts – you realise that this government is not legitimate. They are not transparent, and I hope they can respect some higher authority.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (16:48): I would like to make a contribution on this item. I am a bit betwixt and between, to be frank. When I heard that these buildings were going to be demolished, it was not yea and it was not nay; it was ‘Oh no, not again.’ I am old enough to remember when Jeff Kennett announced that the then Liberal government would knock down all the towers, and of course they ended up knocking down I think two. If I hark back to those days – and I have been a resident in Kensington for 30 years now – I spent 8½ years on the community reference group for the Kensington estate redevelopment, including pretty much fortnightly meetings for most of that time on the design review committee. So I know those buildings pretty well, at least the ones that are still standing. That was a massive redevelopment. It was also the first public–private partnership where this had been done. It was started under the Liberals with Kennett, and then we had the very good fortune to have Bronwyn Pike, who was also the Minister for Housing prior to becoming also the health minister, as our local member. She took a very personal view of it, as did Glenyys Romanes, who was in this house, who was the chair of that committee. We had a very, very good group – very thoughtful, very progressive and committed to public housing, and I want to come back to that in a minute. We also had an agreement that, given it was the first PPP, there should be a rigorous analysis done of that process, and accordingly a tender was let and Swinburne University did a progressive study of that redevelopment over the course of it. It produced a very comprehensive report with a range of recommendations, including how you do community engagement, how you do relocations, what decanting and rescheduling looks like and how you live in a construction site – and of course this government has ignored all of it. It is as though it never happened.

It staggers me that we are having this discussion on some levels. I perhaps should have been involved earlier in this in terms of the committee – I did not get involved, and I think I am still a bit PTSD post the Kensington estate redevelopment – but I would like to make a couple of points. One, we are talking about two different types of buildings. There are the red bricks. They are of a particular genre and particular age, and yes, they have had the gong. They are also fairly intermediate construction weight, and they do not lend themselves to easy retrofitting. The majority of these buildings are not, though. The majority of these came well after the red bricks.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

David ETTERSHANK: Sorry, I am enjoying your contribution there, Mr Batchelor. These are preformed concrete buildings, and they are what we would say today are hugely overengineered buildings. You would never build them today. They are far more robust in their construction than just about anything you will see on the skyline here in the city. The argument that has been put up about a 50-year life is spurious. If you were doing that, if you were running the targeted building life of a high-rise building, you would have to knock down most of the CBD. I hate to say that, but they are all past the notional thing, because what that says is you come to that point and then you are either up for demolition or up for a major retrofit, a major refurbishment. So this is a self-serving argument. When we hear this argument about the plumbing going –

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

David ETTERSHANK: I will just let that pass. I do not even know what you are talking about. If we talk about things like the plumbing, yes, if you go into these buildings – and I have been through these buildings, floor by bloody floor, apartment by apartment – they have huge risers. They are designed to be retrofitted. That is what the architects are telling you.

One of the buildings that is to be demolished is 94 Ormond Street in Kensington, which was specifically gutted, retrofitted and designed for ageing in place, to the point where it has an elevator attached to the external surface of the building specifically so that it would be disability- and ambulance-accessible. What we have seen is that this government – and it is not just this government, it is the prior government – spent absolutely nothing on maintenance. You have a situation now where you have got one housing officer per 800 units. Is it any surprise you cannot maintain these properties?

The fact of the matter is that when you talk about things like ceiling heights, can I suggest to you, with the greatest respect: go down to one of the Assemble buildings and have a look in them, because you certainly have plenty of photo ops out the front of them. I think you will find they are all 2.6 or 2.8, which is exactly what is in most of the preformed towers. I know that is a downer. It is not convenient, but it happens to be a fact.

Harriet Shing interjected.

David ETTERSHANK: In the Assemble buildings? Oh, absolutely. You have actually got ceilings. Okay, thank you for that wonderful contribution from the minister. We are making it up. it is all a conspiracy. Well, the point is, perhaps, Minister: if we are making it up, perhaps if you wanted to make sure that we were not –

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, I know Mr Ettershank does not seem to feel like he needs to respect other people in this chamber and has been pulled up on this before. I would ask that he not point at members while he is making his various contributions.

Renee Heath: Further to the point of order, Acting President, I think Mr Ettershank was provoked by Minister Shing.

David ETTERSHANK: I will desist from pointing at all.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Thank you, Mr Ettershank. Continue with your contribution.

David ETTERSHANK: I apologise for that, and I apologise, Minister.

If this government is saying that the committee is wrong, that we are all wrong in what we are asserting, release the information. One of the first things I did in here was a documents motion asking for a simple cost plan, a building condition report and a business case, and it has still not been released two years later. You could not bring yourself to put the truth in. It was doubly embarrassing when you said you would not release a business case here on the basis of executive privilege, cabinet in confidence and commercial in confidence, but then when you went to the court and you were asked by the judge to show that business case, you had to confess that there in fact was not a business case.

These are buildings that have a long life still in them. I live in a house that is 140 years old. It has been retrofitted; it has been maintained. You do not maintain, you do not retrofit, you do not respect these buildings and you do not respect these residents. I live in this community – I am a couple of hundred metres from the flats – and the reality is those people are terrified and those people are being pressured. I know you love to sit in this place and pontificate, but I am actually living in that area, as I know Ms Gray-Barberio is as well.

The reality is you do not have the budget to actually rebuild these things, so what we are effectively seeing is an exit via this charade and this conflation of social housing with community housing with public housing. What we are seeing is this government exiting public housing and basically privatising through not-for-profits and through community housing. I am not against community housing; I love community housing. But you are withdrawing from public housing. You are so good at this, Minister, in terms of conflating and confusing. But the reality is that if you are not going to put the information out, if you are not going to make it clear to people what we are dealing with, then why wouldn’t we draw these conclusions?

Be honest; be transparent. You would not release the documents that we requested previously. I know it takes two years maybe to do some photocopying, but anyway, you would not release information to the committee. The time has come: if you cannot be honest, if you cannot be straight up, then this needs to go somewhere else. Whether it is the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office or whether it is the Ombudsman, I do not know. But in the case that Ms Gray-Barberio has brought this here, I congratulate her, and we will certainly be supporting this motion.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:58): I have only got 10 minutes. I am going to try and be quick; there is a lot that I have got to cover. The inquiry that the Parliament’s Legal and Social Issues Committee did receive a lot of evidence about the current condition of these towers. Mr Ettershank in his contribution said that there was no evidence provided that there is a problem with the condition of these towers.

A few key facts: the first two towers to be demolished, the red-brick towers on Elgin Street in Carlton, had to be evacuated in 2022 because of a catastrophic failure of the sewerage stacks that saw raw sewage running down the walls of the places that people lived and flooding the basements that housed the electricals, shutting entire buildings down and rendering them uninhabitable. Mr Ettershank in his contribution said that those towers were somehow different, but that is not the evidence from the experts that the parliamentary committee received. The evidence from the experts that the parliamentary committee received was basically that the built-form typology of those towers and the other 42 towers across Melbourne is basically the same.

Also, what sets these towers apart from every office building in Melbourne, as Mr Ettershank talked about, is their construction methodology. They are precast built form, where all of the walls are structural, and this renders them completely different to every office building in the city. They are unique. Mr Ettershank says that they are made from solid concrete and therefore they will not come down. Let us have a detour into concrete facts. The appendix to the independent report commissioned and funded by organisations including the Greens details the compressive strength of the concrete panels used to construct these buildings. The Australian standard for concrete is 40 megapascals. These panels are built to a compressive strength of 20 megapascals. They are half as strong as the Australian standard says the concrete should be – concrete fact 1.

Concrete fact 2: according to that independent report, cutting holes in the walls to make the doors wide enough for wheelchairs to fit through creates structural problems in the buildings themselves that you have to fix by constructing a steel exoskeleton around the building with 17 drill holes per floor – and they said that people should not move out whilst they drilled through that concrete.

Concrete fact 3 – and this is evidence that was given to the parliamentary inquiry; I am sorry that Mr Ettershank does not listen to evidence, and I am sorry that the Greens do not listen to evidence – is that when those concrete panels were being cast in the 1950s in Melbourne, they applied a calcium substrate to the outside of the concrete to help them dry faster. What has happened over 60 years is that that calcium has slowly been absorbed into that half-as-strong-as-it-should-be concrete that has less aggregate in it. What has that done? It has started rusting the reinforcing steel that sits inside those concrete panels. What we have right now in these towers is increasing instances of concrete spalling, and that means the concrete is literally falling off the sides of the towers, and the insides as well, even in areas that are not exposed to the weather. The Legislative Council Legal and Social Issues Committee members witnessed with their own eyes concrete that had fallen off the walls, and the reinforcing steel inside that concrete was rusting. We held it with our own fingers.

We also held in our own hands the copper piping that is the basis of the sewerage, and it was so degraded that you could bend it with your fingers just like this because of the accumulated acid built up over the course of its 50-year, 60-year life span. They are the real facts that exist in this debate that you cannot ignore. When we were in South Yarra at a public hearing, when Ms Gray-Barberio asked a resident for evidence of the structural problems with the towers, that resident invited the committee to turn around and look at the ceiling, and there was discolouration in the ceiling. What was that discolouration from? Sewage. And where was the sewage coming from? Failing pipes. Then Ms Gray-Barberio asked that resident if anyone had come and tried to fix it, and that resident said, ‘Yes, hundreds of times.’

These towers are at the end of their intended life. Trying to retrofit them, the independent analysis shows, would be hugely costly and leave you with buildings that do not meet current design and accessibility standards, let alone energy efficiency standards. It is there, in black and white, in the evidence that was provided to the parliamentary committee. It was also provided in black and white to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, both of whom, at first instance and on appeal, held that the government’s actions were justified under law.

The last thing I want to say is that we the Parliament, through this motion, are making a very detailed referral to the Ombudsman, and I think it is important just to put on record the evidence that the Ombudsman has given to the Parliament both through their annual report and to the Integrity and Oversight Committee (IOC) about the impact of very detailed referrals from the Parliament to the Ombudsman. We are obviously within our rights to refer matters. I think this motion is very, very detailed and is seeking a range of things that is going to present the Ombudsman with a significant resourcing challenge to deliver. And I say this because –

David Ettershank: You could fund them properly.

Ryan BATCHELOR: The Ombudsman is funded by way of a Treasurer’s advance for any additional – parliamentary referrals are provided additional funding, basically. But the effect of parliamentary referrals has been in 2024–25, according to their annual report, a 38 per cent reduction in the number of investigations closed. In the evidence that the Ombudsman gave to the IOC a couple of months ago there were no new investigations from public complaints made last year as a result of both referrals from the Parliament and public interest disclosures having legislative precedence over complaints from the general public. So I think we are going to see another annual report, another reporting cycle, where the Ombudsman will be telling us that she cannot investigate the complaints from Victorian citizens because we are seeing these referrals which receive additional funding to deliver. That is the result, that is the effect and those are the facts.

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:08): It is actually painful to sit through this debate. As a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee and a person who personally visited these sites, took keen interest in the situation of public housing and listened attentively to the trauma that had been caused by this government, I would say, first of all, it is a great shame that a bunch of politicians are gathering together to discuss structural things which clearly are outside the realms of their expertise. But having said that, here we are, and I rise to show my support for documents motion 1485 about social housing.

I noticed that Mr Batchelor asked, ‘Where is the proof of people wanting to complain?’ et cetera et cetera. Well, if we go to page 102 of the actual report that came out of the public hearing on social housing, Mr Batchelor asked this particular question:

It is one thing to talk about fear of retribution. Have you got any examples of where people have actually felt or seen retribution?

This is just one example that was put into the report. And this particular person in the inquiry on social housing said:

For me personally, I know that my mum would be very afraid to come to a [public hearing], because she would be afraid that her tenancy could be at risk, and she has told me this. She does not want to rock the boat.

So much did they love their homes and where they lived but also fear this government, they were not willing, in many cases, to come forward even though they had tremendous concerns and wanted their voices to be heard. So it is not simply something to brag about and say, ‘Oh, we haven’t heard a complaint.’ How do we know that these people had not been intimidated to the point of fear, to where they did not feel they could come forward, or did not have – as we know from the report as well and from the inquiry – language interpreters provided in many cases for even the relocation.

In fact if I look at the some of the comments that were made regarding the lack of communication – and again I am just going to quote from the actual report itself – a piece of paper was put under the door. It says:

You go there and there is no interpreter. They just say, ‘Oh, this is where you’re going to move. This is where you’re going to – you have two choices. If you don’t do it, then we’re going to evict you in some way.’ That is what they told me …

That was one of the residents. The point is that people were being intimidated. People were afraid, and they needed their homes. So it is not a matter of ‘Oh, nobody made a complaint.’ There would have been a lot of complaints and a lot of people who were too afraid to come forward and actually say what the issue was.

I went and saw these housing towers, and I could see tremendous potential in so many of them – a bit of paint, new carpet, maybe a refresher of the kitchen. I am telling you, there are so many people in my region –

John Berger interjected.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Yes, I would have been prepared to live there in a renovation if I needed to. And let me tell you, there are so many people sleeping out in cardboard boxes in the south-east, which I represent, people sleeping in little humpies that they are making out of rubbish right near my office and Gabrielle Williams’s office. Across the road from her office people make –

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I am not making it up, and you are doing a disservice to that person who is living in this thing made out of rubbish, which they are having to live in. They would much rather live in one of these beautiful places that could have been done up – several bedrooms, fresh paint. There were some that required additional attention, but I guarantee that we were being shown the worst rooms and the worst apartments in order to justify the government’s decisions. Long term, were they going to have to be rebuilt? Yes. But in a housing crisis, when people are sleeping in cardboard boxes and in their cars, when they have nowhere to go, it was irresponsible. It remains irresponsible. This government has done the people of Victoria a total disservice, because they had built community. In fact I will go on here to say what this did to some of these people. I am quoting from page 94 of the report that came out of this inquiry:

One older woman ended up in hospital following her relocation as she was so traumatised by having to sever the ties with her home of many years.

Another older woman died due to health complications, most likely brought on by the sudden announcement and then the relocation stress.

These were people that had lived in these areas for a long time. They had a wonderful sense of community. Many of them were long-term residents. It says here, for instance, that in the housing towers – I am now quoting from page 92 – they were long‑term residents and:

… nearly half of public housing households have lived in public housing for more than 10 years … Many residents have formed deep roots in Flemington, with over half (57%) having lived there for six or more years.

Then it goes on to say how we in the committee:

… heard concerns from residents and organisations that relocation risks fracturing these networks and community support.

I felt when I went through that I could see that there were things that needed to be changed. I myself have had to raise four kids, and I know what it is like to have to live on one income with four little children in this country. That is what spurred me into politics in the first place. I did not have a dream or a desire or a sense of entitlement to become a politician. I had a family, and I can tell you that when you struggle with your family in a nation like this, you pay attention to the laws that are having an impact on your family and your ability to raise them and to feed them. I can tell you that I have had to renovate many places in order to live in them. I looked at those towers and those apartments, and I knew, with a coat of paint and some new carpet, they would be nice. I am sorry, some of you are used to much better places, but people would be thinking, ‘Where am I going to raise my family? What am I going to do?’ When I sit and talk to the people that live in the south-east who are struggling and have nowhere, these towers provided homes and community for people who needed them.

I understand that if you are going to build something better, eventually there is a moment where things are uncomfortable, where people have to adjust. But the reality is you are ripping out and gutting a whole lot of places with a whole lot of people. We have such a huge need, and you have not met that need. When you have people sleeping in their cars with their families or people that are sleeping in cardboard boxes or permanently couch-surfing because they have nowhere else to go, it is simply irresponsible what this government did. The fact that they cannot be transparent about the cost-effectiveness of this and whether they could really justify what they were doing and the fact that we are taking public housing and public land and somehow turning them into privatised situations or public/private situations but we do not have any transparency on what is taking place to know whether the numbers stack up or the situation stacks up – well, I support a motion like this that says there needs to be more information and that the people deserve to have more information and that this needs to go to the Ombudsman and we need to have more done, because these people deserve better. Every single one of those people who were displaced and that are having a hard time now deserves better, and all those people sleeping in their cars and on the beaches and on the streets deserve better. This government has failed the people of Victoria.

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (17:17): I would like to thank all members for contributing on the motion this afternoon, in particular Mr McCracken, Dr Heath, Mr Ettershank and Mrs Hermans. But let us talk about the government’s contribution to this motion today. It is absolutely astounding, the level of obfuscation from this government to try and water down and diminish the experiences of the public housing residents.

We had one of these residents on the first day of the hearing come to us and say to all of us in the committee that day that they came in like Willy Wonka with golden tickets. How dare they treat public housing residents as if they are less than. Good governments would be making every effort to reach out to those on the margins of society and making every genuine attempt to bring them in and be inclusive and ensure that their experiences are centred in the government’s decision-making, but what has been absolutely clear throughout the process of hearings, submissions and evidence is that this government does not care. It is putting the interests of property developers before the health and wellbeing of public housing residents. We would never see this government treat any other Victorian like they have treated the residents of the public housing towers. We would never see them turn up in Toorak or Brighton and make announcements that are just so horrible or treat people as less than, in inhumane ways.

The former housing minister went on and on about person-centred community engagement. We heard loud and clear throughout this inquiry clear evidence of coercion and pressure being put on residents to sign relocation documents. We know this because we had community legal centres provide evidence of where they had to help people that wanted to rescind their consent to these coercive relocation forms. Why – because they did not understand what they were signing. And why didn’t they understand? Because this government did not make the effort to ensure that the information that was being given to public housing residents was accurate and that it was well understood. Instead they have the audacity to stand up here in this chamber and harp on about misinformation. If there is anyone that should be charged with misinformation, it is this government. How dare they treat public housing residents like this. Not only are these residents having to face racial profiling, stigma, prejudice, discrimination and racism; on top of that, they have a government that comes in, swoops in as if pretending to care about them. Then you have government members in their contributions having the temerity to stand here and act like they are engineers and give us expert advice. No, we were all there. We were all there, Mr Batchelor. We heard the same intel that you heard. But let me be clear: you are not an engineer, so you cannot speak to that. You can have your understanding and interpretation of that, but you will not stand here and base your contribution as if you are an engineer. No, you are a politician just like me, and our job is to ensure that the public housing residents’ experiences are centred. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

We heard time and time again about the trauma and the fact that these public housing towers to them – this is what they told us – are a sanctuary. They are more than just addresses; they are communities. The government harps on about social cohesion. Guess what, nobody knows more about social cohesion than public housing residents. Instead this government wants to talk down to them, wants to only drip-feed information to this community – all for what? All for property developers, all for profits and who knows whatever else, because guess what, we are not given the information to justify the demolition of all 44 public housing towers. How unfair this is on public housing residents. Isn’t our job in this chamber to ensure that there is equality in the rights and distribution of power? No, this government is all about maintenance of power. Public housing residents deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and I commend this motion to the house.

Motion agreed to.