Thursday, 13 August 2026

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (21:30): I rise to make a contribution on behalf of the Liberals and Nationals on the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. In doing so, I would like to give a shout-out and a thankyou to our Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs, Jade Benham, the member for Mildura. This is her first shadow ministerial carriage of a bill. It is a substantive bill. It is an omnibus bill. I know that she has been working most diligently, and consequently she does have a number of amendments that we are going to go through during the committee stage. I believe she has also been working quite collaboratively with the new Minister for Consumer Affairs Minister Richardson. We will go through the process and see what comes out at the end. Mind you, when we were having a discussion around this, she said that Minister Richardson is the third minister in the course of this bill since it was introduced. There has been a little bit of Peyton Place occurring within the Labor Party and the government. We have seen, probably since the start of this bill, that there has been a change of Premier.

This is an omnibus bill. It contains 179 clauses across 13 parts and amends a wide range of consumer legislation, including laws dealing with estate agents, owners corporations, residential tenancies, residential parks, the sale of land, illicit tobacco and motor car sales. It is a little bit like one with the lot. There is much in this bill that is sensible and can be supported, but it also needs careful scrutiny. We certainly do not oppose consumer protection in an ever-changing world. It is to ensure that the mechanisms are workable and proportionate and do not create unintended consequences for the very consumers that they are intended to protect.

Our amendments therefore focus on independence, on transparency and on workability. The core amendments include workable auction reserve prices, retaining and modernising the section 27 deposit release safeguards, an informed contract pathway in terms of section 32, retaining independent and proportionate protections for motor car traders and consumers and protecting responsible landlords who take lawful action against illicit tobacco activity. I know that has been something that my colleague Tim McCurdy, who is the shadow minister in that space, has been working very hard and long on. Only in question time today I raised the issue of an alleged abduction and stabbing in my electorate due to these illicit tobacco shops. Extortion, corruption and criminal activity are occurring, very sadly, in metropolitan Melbourne but also in regional Victoria.

I will try and keep this as concise as possible, but it is important to cover off on the various elements of this bill. In relation to the clauses, clauses 3 to 10 look specifically at seized goods and documents. Consumer Affairs Victoria receives clearer powers and procedures for notifying owners, returning seized property and ultimately forfeited uncollected property. Generally, a person has 28 days after a notice to collect an item with court proceedings for its return, preventing forfeiture while the matter is unresolved. Really, this is just administrative bookkeeping. Consumer Affairs should not have to store abandoned seized goods indefinitely, providing proper notice and making sure review rights are preserved.

In relation to debt collectors, it updates the categories of persons prohibited from engaging in debt collection, with relevant offences that have been committed in Victoria, interstate or under the Commonwealth – really, again, a sensible consistency measure. A person should not be able to exploit judicial technicalities to avoid restrictions arising from serious misconduct.

In relation to conveyancers and trust accounts, this bill allows the Business Licensing Authority to suspend a conveyancer’s licence for up to 12 months for failure to lodge required trust account audit reports after notice and opportunity to comply have occurred. Where professionals hold clients’ money, proper trust account accountability is fundamental. Let us think about that – money and being accountable is a highly professional standard, and we have seen that diminish under this government.

Moving on to domestic building contracts, it requires significant variation to domestic building contracts to be documented in writing, including changed work and costs. The provisions apply where prescribed monetary thresholds have been reached. Indeed, speaking in relation to this aspect, my partner has been working in the building industry for many, many years. He is an extension and variation specialist – if you need your bathroom renovated, he is the guy, and he is very well respected. Enough of him – one of the key factors in all of this is that where there are variations, there really needs to be a very clear conversation about what those variations are. If a home owner is being asked to pay substantially more for building work – and it can come in relation to increased costs or changed decisions during a building or renovating process – there certainly should be a clear written record of what has changed and what it costs. That provides everybody with a level of certainty.

I do acknowledge that the shadow minister is in the house and has been paying very diligent attention to this. In relation to clauses 17 to 27, around estate agents and property sales, the bill creates new sale data reporting and publication requirements. It also changes comparable sales rules and replaces the existing statement of information with a more detailed property price statement. Reasonably for comparable sales, the lookback period is six months in metropolitan Melbourne and 18 months outside of metro Melbourne. The longer regional period recognises that regional markets often have fewer genuinely comparable sales because of potentially thin markets, so it provides that longer time so there can be more analysis.

Clause 26 is much more contentious, and I know we have got some amendments to that when it comes around. It requires the vendor reserve to be confirmed and publicly available for seven days before an auction or fixed date. Once a reserve is set, advertising below it must be altered or removed. I note that our shadow minister has been working on an amendment, which I will go through most conveniently in a moment. These provisions are dealt with in part 2.

In terms of part 6, on owners corporations, the bill changes owners corporation litigation rules and creates a payment plan regime for lot owners experiencing financial hardship. We know that that is occurring right across Victoria at the moment in terms of the number of taxes – I think 67 new or increased taxes – we have seen this government put on since its instigation. The then Premier Andrews said there would be no more new or increased taxes. There has been a whole raft, and sometimes these increases can bite.

Strata Community Association Victoria, through the general manager Susan Chandler, supports the objective of assisting owners in genuine hardship but has sought clearer and stronger rules and safeguards around payments, arrears, debt recovery, voting rights, privacy, hardship evidence and owners corporation financial stability. In fact she goes on, in some communications with the shadow minister, to say that:

SCA (Vic) supports the Bill’s aim of helping lot owners experiencing unique financial hardship and improving access to suitable legal proceedings.

That was Susan Chandler. She goes on:

However, several proposed changes require clearer rules and stronger safeguards to ensure they are fair, practical and workable.

That is what our amendments will certainly seek to do.

Ultimately, assistance for genuine hardship is appropriate, but an owners corporation still has various inputs and requirements. They still have insurance, safety, utilities and essential maintenance obligations, so naturally there is a cost impost that they have to make sure that they meet them. The regime should certainly not simply shift one of the owner’s liabilities indefinitely onto every other owner.

On residential tenancies and residential parks, the bill includes protections for victim-survivors of family or personal violence, including probity refusal of a rental application because a person has experienced such violence. It also deals with keys and access devices, bonds, break-lease matters and residential parks. This really is a very substantial bill, with multifaceted aspects. For part 4A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, on residential parks, the bill introduces new rent rules, special increase processes, deferred payment charge rules, registration disclosure and a code framework.

Caravan & Residential Parks Victoria, I note, have written to many here – and I know they wrote to the shadow minister Ms Benham – and raised concerns from the operators’ side. Residents’ interests require strong protection, and no-one is denying that we need to be focused on the residents of these parks. Sometimes they are really important. Without a doubt these can be very much a home away from home. I have got some beautiful relatives that live up in Queensland. They have had a very interesting life, and for various reasons they are now suitably ensconced in a residential caravan park in Queensland, enjoying the warm weather but also enjoying that contained and far more easy-to-manage lifestyle that that can provide. But also notably, and particularly in a cost-of-living crisis where even if you can get a rental they can be quite significant in terms of the proportion of your weekly or monthly budget, they do and can offer both a practical outcome as a home – a roof over your head – but they can also be at a managed cost. The parks certainly have raised their concerns around the operator side as well as understanding that protection. People who own a dwelling on another person’s land can certainly face high exit costs and limited practical mobility. The coalition amendment approach therefore seeks a genuine, two-sided balance, and I appreciate that.

On the Sale of Land Act 1962, in part 9 the bill changes the deposit release arrangements and creates a new 14-day availability requirement for section 32 vendor statements. These are major amendment issues, and we will be addressing those as well.

Finally, in terms of getting toward the end of the sections, there is illicit tobacco. This bill strengthens closure and enforcement powers against illicit tobacco businesses, including short-term closures of up to 90 days in specific circumstances. Strong action against illicit tobacco is absolutely warranted, and we have seen really a diabolical situation with this illicit tobacco. Really, in many ways it is warfare where there is corruption there. But we have seen again and again not only a particular building or business being targeted, but it affects all the other shops in the shopping strip. This government has been very tardy in coming to do something about it. I know my colleague Mr McCurdy has been working on this for a long time and has made some comparisons. We will be asking some questions in committee of the whole in relation to what other states are doing that is working and that has not been happening in Victoria. I know that the amendment package also seeks a responsible landlord defence, where an owner promptly notifies authorities and takes a reasonable, lawful step, so there are some strengthening powers in our amendments.

In terms of motor car traders, there is often very less than complimentary commentary around second-hand car dealers. I think we have all been there, and if you have not, you have certainly had a more affluent life than most. But we need these motor car traders. It does reform motor car licensing warranties, odometer offences and guarantee fund claims, and importantly in part 12, division 1, it abolishes the Motor Car Traders Claims Committee and transfers claims, administration and determination functions to the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria. I know that there are some concerns around that as well. The institutional change is one of the Liberals’ and Nationals’ highest priority amendments, and it is dealt with through our amendment process.

I am in two minds because of the lateness of the hour. I may actually take up the idea that we will go through the various clauses that we seek to amend at the start of the committee stage. However, I also do not want to elongate tomorrow. What I might do is ask for these amendments to be circulated. We may as well just go to bed 5 minutes later, and I will make sure this is done so we can expedite tomorrow. So let us move on.

In relation to the Liberals and Nationals amendments, the first set looks at clause 26, which is the auction reserve prices. The issue in this clause is that it requires a reserve price to be confirmed and published for seven days before an auction or fixed date sale. We very much support the meaningful disclosure, but the regime needs to be flexible enough to accommodate legitimate market movement without reopening the door to underquoting. One of the stakeholders in this is the Real Estate Institute of Victoria. Robert Clements has warned that the property sale provisions risk real cost and disruption without demonstrated benefit through this. Indeed, as I have said, our shadow minister has identified the auction day question as a matter to put squarely on the parliamentary record whether a vendor can reduce the reserve on the day of auction.

Our amendment seeks to require the vendor to set the reserve price and permit publication of that as a clearly stated range of no more than 10 per cent. This provides a reasonable flexibility for legitimate market movement on the day, while preserving meaningful transparency for prospective buyers. A downward revision would not postpone the auction and movement within the published range would be permitted, while an increase above the published range would restart the seven-day disclosure period. The ultimate reality is we support transparency. What we do not support is a system that is so rigid that it fails to recognise legitimate market movement. A disclosed range of no more than 10 per cent gives buyers meaningful information whilst preserving reasonable flexibility.

In terms of part 9 and section 27 deposit releases, one of the key factors that we need is that the bill does not abolish early deposit release altogether. It shifts the process away from the statutory section 27 path into contract. That means that the practical risk of early release remains, while familiar statutory safeguards can be negotiable. Again, Robert Clements speaks about:

My concern is not resistance to reform …these particular provisions have not been shown to resolve a demonstrated problem, and are likely to create real cost and disruption for consumers and small businesses without a corresponding benefit.

This amendment that we seek to put forward omits clauses 106 to 108, so section 27 is retained and modernised. Repealing this section does not stop early release of deposits. It removes the statutory guardrails around it, and if an early release can still occur, purchasers should have clear protections under the law rather than being left to whatever happens to appear in an individual contract.

We also have amendments to section 32. Our amendments require that a section 32 statement be available when a property is first publicly ordered for sale and within a short prescribed period for a private sale or a bona fide pre-auction offer to permit contracting after the purchaser has received a statement and either obtained independent legal or conveyancing advice or completed a prescribed informed waiver. Of course, material adverse amendments can trigger a fresh short period, and immaterial corrections should not restart the whole entire clock. Consumer protection should ensure the purchaser has the information needed to make that decision.

In terms of motor car traders and independent claims, the bill abolishes the specialist Motor Car Traders Claims Committee and transfers the guarantee fund claim determination over to the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria. It also creates the licence review consequences connected with VCAT payment orders and guaranteed events. We are concerned at, and part of this amendment is around the fact that, consumers should retain independent specialists’ first-instance claim decision-making. At the same time, compliant dealers should not face disproportionate licensing consequences arising from ordinary disputes. Strong action must remain available against dishonest, deliberately noncompliant and unlicensed operators. We have been able to look at this and ensure that we have got the balance right in our amendments. We wish to maintain the Motor Car Traders Claims Committee as a statutory decision-maker while allowing Consumer Affairs to provide secretariat, triage and investigation support. Consumers, as we know, should not have their first-instance claim decided by the same regulator that administers and investigates the scheme. Having this separation – having this distance – retains that level of independence in decision-making, which is not only good for the industry but is also good for the consumer.

Finally, in terms of our amendment suites, I think I have got two more. The bill strengthens enforcement against illicit tobacco activity and includes some provisions affecting the owners of the premises. What our amendment will do is we want to beef that up and we want to protect responsible landlords from liability where they promptly notify authorities. This is about really once the police inform the landlord that they have people operating illegally in their shop – on their premises – then they need to be able to protect that responsible landlord from liability when they are prompt, direct the conduct to cease, cooperate with enforcement action and take reasonable, lawful steps that are available, and it preserves that liability where the landlord knowingly permits the illicit tobacco activity. You are targeting the people that are not doing the right thing, but putting a bit more of a stick over the top of them to get rid of these illicit tobacco shops and all of the danger that goes with them. We should come down very hard on landlords who knowingly facilitate illegal tobacco activity, but a reasonable landlord who reports the activity and takes every reasonable step to stop it should be recognised as not being part of the criminal enterprise but part of the solution.

Finally, in relation to residential parks, an additional amendment. We know that Caravan & Residential Parks Victoria, in its submission in July this year, raised concerns about the rent formula, special increases and deferred management charges. The residential stakeholder material also underscores the need for strong safeguards, because residents can face high exit costs and limited practical mobility. We, the Liberals and Nationals, do not simply adopt the operator position wholesale. We want to preserve predictable resident protections while creating a workable pathway for genuine exceptional verified costs.

Our amendment seeks to keep special increases outside of the ordinary CPI base. We seek to make the cost linked, time limited, independently verified where appropriate and automatically ending when the approved cost is recovered. We require credit cards or refunds for surplus activity and also to provide an expedited VCAT pathway for objectively urgent health, safety and essential services or disaster work, all within the hardship protections. We want to strike the right balance moving forward – no blank cheque for operators, no barrier to urgent safety works. Residents need certainty and protection, and responsible operators need a workable pathway where genuine exceptional costs arise.

That was a fairly elongated discussion, but there are a number of amendments, as you can hear, and we will go through them in committee of the whole, but we will let that happen in due course.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Ingrid STITT: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I declare the sitting be extended by up to 1 hour.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (21:58): I rise to speak on the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 on behalf of my Greens colleagues and myself. As we have heard, the bill covers wideranging reforms to consumer laws. I will say at the outset that the Greens are supporting this bill. I will not go into every single element of this large bill. There is a lot in there, and there are some important changes. I will speak to some elements I think we could improve.

The Greens welcome the small improvements, for example, in this bill for renters, which it almost goes without saying do not go far enough. The bill makes some changes around access to fobs and keys, making it easier for renters to request one and ensuring that landlords or agents cannot have the locks changed as punishment for late rent or breaking building rules. There will now be a limit on break-lease fees, which is a start, but really these are fees that should be abolished. Moving house is tough enough already without adding these extra costs, and even with the proposed limits, agents and landlords will still be able to charge for readvertising. It is good to see that renters will be able to pay their bond directly through the bond authority rather than via an agent or the owner. Too many renters are being ripped off by landlords who hold onto their bonds with zero justification.

The bill also increases protections for renters who are victim-survivors of personal family violence, and this of course is welcome. However, there is still no cap on rent increases. While this bill implements some of the changes that the Greens have been calling for, it still does not help you if your rent is just too damn high. In the last five years rents have gone up 2.5 times faster than wages. Capital city rents rose 57 per cent from 2015 to 2025, with 34 per cent of that rise in just the past three years. Year after year renters get more desperate, tossing up between food, medicine and rent, putting up with black mould and rising damp, too scared to take their landlord to task for failing to meet minimum standards because they just cannot risk another rent rise. Eighty per cent of renters avoid asking for repairs for fear of retaliation. It just does not have to be like this. We have come to think that if you are a renter, suffering is just baked in – that insecurity is part of that deal. But the rental crisis is of course a political choice. Labor and the Liberals we see time and time again have had wealthy property investors straight into their ears and in their pockets for far too long. They do not have the guts to stand up, consequently, for renters, because they are too concerned with what the Property Council of Australia and their wealthy donors would think.

The Greens have a plan to cap rents so they cannot go up faster than wages. We will freeze rents for two years to give wages the chance to catch up and ban rent increases in the first two years of any tenancy. Then we will limit rent rises so they simply cannot go up faster than wages can. We will tie rent increases to the property, not the tenant, so investors cannot kick you out to then go and put up the rent. To tackle the housing crisis, we simply need to cap rent increases.

Another symptom of this housing crisis, though, is that too many people are struggling to buy their first home. Right now families spend weekend after weekend searching and viewing properties, only to find out that they were never in the running in the first place and the price was always just too high. It is good to see that there will be some improvement through this bill in the information available for people looking to buy homes so that they will know if they are actually in the running at all or not.

The Greens introduced a bill in August last year to force real estate agents to disclose the reserve price upon advertising, and we are really happy to see that the government has now taken this up. This government is proposing that reserve prices will have to be declared at least seven days before an auction or fixed date of sale. We would like to see them available even further in advance at the point of advertising, but seven days is of course a good start. We welcome the publishing of sold prices, which will definitely add transparency and more accountability. These are changes the Greens have pushed for, and we are glad to see the government finally implementing them.

Buying a home is one of the biggest financial decisions you will ever make. You should not be forced to make that decision in a public pressure cooker that is designed to rip you off. The research shows that auctions actually place an 8 to 13 per cent premium on the cost of buying a home, so that is why the Greens have a policy to ban street auctions. We are so accustomed to auctions here in Melbourne and the way that we currently do them that we do not even realise it is actually internationally a very strange way to sell a house. Australia, in particular Victoria, is unique in its excessive use of these street auctions for home sales. Many countries manage to sell homes without turning it into a bidding war on the footpath. In Scotland sellers list the property with an independent valuation and condition report, energy performance certificate and questionnaire, listed with a public minimum price, and buyers submit a single maximum bid through a solicitor. In Japan sellers set a fixed price and sell if it is reached. I could go on.

With our housing system so stacked to drive up prices and put more money in the pockets of property investors and real estate agents, it is no wonder Australia’s housing market is one of the most expensive in the world. Abolishing street auctions is not the only way we fix the housing crisis, but if young people are ever going to afford a home of their own, we need to stop defending systems that are specifically designed to push prices higher. You should not be ripped off at every turn. That is why we are also pushing for real estate agents and buyers agents to charge fixed fees declared at the outset so there is no incentive for agents to push the price up as much as it will go. You also should not be forced to spend thousands on properties you never secure. That is why the Greens also want to make sellers pay for building reports, pest inspections and energy efficiency reports. Stop the rip-offs: that is Greens policy.

The bill also makes some minor updates to owners corporation law, but we do need to go much further. Payment plans for apartment owners are an important step. Owners corporation fees are putting a huge strain on people, particularly during a cost-of-living crisis.

The Greens are pleased to see these changes that will make it easier for people to access payment plans for their fees, but there are still many things that need to be changed to improve specifically apartment living. We need to end insurance commissions for strata managers and see an end to all kinds of commissions, incentives and these kickbacks to stop corrupt strata managers from taking apartment owners for a ride. We need to empower renters to fully participate in the governance of their building and not put disproportionate power in the hands of owners over renters to have a say. They should be residents corporations, not owners corporations.

We finally got the report on the Owners Corporation Act 2006 review. It made some solid recommendations, but the government’s response has only agreed to some of these and left others out. I have an amendment to this bill to stop the harvesting of proxy votes in owners corporation meetings. I have heard from a number of owners corporations that this is a significant and rampant problem. People are collecting proxy votes as a means to control the decision-making process of the owners corporations to suit themselves rather than all owners. This is even more keenly felt in the much larger buildings, where one person can hold many, many proxies. I am talking about electorates of my colleagues across inner metropolitan Melbourne, but also parts of the electorate I represent – places like Box Hill, where we see this greater density, those much taller towers with many more apartments. There is an example, which I have previously shared in this place, of a large apartment building with around 1000 lots. At an owners corporation AGM in this building one real estate agent attended holding 35 proxies, while there were only 33 other owners in attendance in person or online, plus a small number of people holding their own proxies. This gave near full control to the one real estate agent at an AGM, where significant decisions could be made that affected thousands of residents in the building, despite not owning or even living in a dwelling in that building.

I will have more to say on how the Greens amendments here will work. They were circulated a full week ago, unlike many of the amendments that have come before us in this chamber, and I ask that they be circulated now. I will have more to say on this amendment as we get to the committee stage. But from the outset, I would like to thank members from right across the chamber of various parties who have been very constructive in their conversation around this issue. I do hope we have a pathway with respect to proxy voting in owners corporations.

Moving on, though, the tobacco changes in this bill include things like closure powers for Tobacco Licensing Victoria and Victoria Police to shut down illicit tobacco stores for up to 90 days, and they can apply to courts for longer closure; penalties for landlords knowingly allowing the sale of illicit tobacco; and powers for landlords to terminate leases if tenants are selling illicit tobacco. People across Melbourne are living in fear of when the next firebombing is going to be. Almost every week we hear of at least one fire after a tobacco store is rammed and then set alight. These attacks are heartbreaking for residents. They are heartbreaking for shop owners, who are already struggling to make ends meet. The community needs both police and Tobacco Licensing Victoria to actually act on these powers to shut down this illicit tobacco industry.

The Greens pushed and the government finally established Tobacco Licensing Victoria, but it is safe to say it is underpowered and it has been largely ineffectual to date. Illicit tobacco is being sold literally in plain sight and Victorian authorities are failing to stop it. Police should have been closing these places down, and for some reason they have not been. That is why the Greens support these changes to the legislation to make it clear that Tobacco Licensing Victoria and Victoria Police do have the power to shut down illicit tobacco and cut off these organised crime syndicates from their lucrative revenue stream. Our community deserve so much better than this, but they are suffering under a government that in areas like this has just lost control. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (22:09): I do not intend to speak for long at this hour of the night; I just want to make a small number of points. This is obviously an omnibus bill that covers many different areas. My principal interest is the matters around owners corps and the large towers that have so many renters and owners in the electorate that Ms Crozier and I represent. We are very aware of the challenges that are faced by owners corps. I want to put on record the work done by the shadow minister, Jade Benham. I also want to draw the chamber’s attention to the work put forward by the Strata Community Association (SCA) to the chamber, and to particularly highlight some of the challenges that are faced by many who have strata community involvement.

The position paper put out by the Strata Community Association is an important one. It makes some clear points:

…1.27 million Victorians, around 18 per cent of the population, live in strata-titled dwellings, including more than 500,000 apartment residents and 770,000 residents in townhouses …

The regulation and control of these significant sections of the community’s living zones is important in itself. The positions that they put, I think, are thoughtful. They lay out six policy positions for a start, and those six policy positions are ones that I certainly agree with and see make certain logical sense. They particularly lay out some points about legal proceedings and the resolution of thresholds, and there are obviously questions about the size of the requirements in different circumstances for resolutions and requirements for special resolutions.

The choice of forum for debt recovery is also a significant point that is picked up by the Strata Community Association. It says the bill should expressly confirm that an owners corporation may recover money owed by a lot owner through VCAT, the Magistrates’ Court or any other court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. The payment plan and hardships protection in the act should apply regardless of the forum used. I think that makes sense. They point to certain difficulties. There have been a number of court cases and decisions:

In Owners Corporation v Nguyen and Ors [2025] VMC 12, the Magistrates’ Court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear debt recovery claims brought by an owners corporation against a lot owner. The decision followed the earlier ruling in the Owners Corporation v Buckley [2024] VMC 12 and confirmed that these claims must be commenced in VCAT. This applies despite section 30(1) of the Act stating that an owners corporation may recover money in any court of competent jurisdiction. Restricting all owners corporation debt recovery matters to VCAT creates significant practical concerns.

One of the great failings of this government has been the delays in the court system. VCAT, for many people, has now become a very long, slow, expensive jurisdiction because decisions cannot be made earlier, frustrating and undermining the very purposes for which that tribunal was set up. The figures are for the delays in the Supreme Court, the County Court, VCAT and the Magistrates’ Court and are all concerning. So the wider the jurisdiction, the wider the ability to choose a jurisdiction, the better and the earlier decision making. That is actually in the favour, I might say, of all parties, rather than having lengthy delays and greater costs.

The owner-occupier status and information definitions is another point in the Strata Community Association’s paper, which indicates that:

The Act should define “owner-occupier” and provide one clear and proportionate evidence pathway in the approved form.

That all makes sense. They also point to standard terms and maximum duration:

A standard form would reduce inconsistent terms and make the deemed acceptance process safer and easier to administer.

And they say:

A standard payment plan template should be prescribed, with room for agreed variations. The maximum term of 12 months should be stated clearly in the operative payment plan provision …

On the question of voting proxies and community and committee eligibility:

The Bill would treat an owner as not being in arrears while a payment plan request is awaiting a decision or while the owner is complying with an approved plan. This would restore voting rights, proxy rights and committee eligibility before a claimant payment plan is approved.

And they say that the SCA position is:

Voting rights, proxy rights and committee eligibility should be restored only once a payment plan has been approved, not while the request is awaiting a decision. An owner should continue to be treated as being in arrears until approval is granted.

That also has a certain logic to it. With respect to new levies, breaches and the restart of recovery, the SCA says the act should state that current and future levies, including special levies, remain payable during the plan. Failure to pay a new levy by its due date should be a breach unless the plan expressly covers that levy. The act should set out a clear notice process and a cure period where appropriate.

In terms of interest and financial fairness, the SCA argues an owners corporation’s existing discretion to apply, reduce or waive interest should be preserved, with any interest capped at the maximum rate allowed by law. Approval of a payment plan should not erase interest that accrued before the plan was approved. They talk about administration costs. They point to a number of other key matters that should be dealt with by this bill.

The bill does not go as far as I think many would like to see it go, but this is an area, I think, for significant reform over the longer period, where decisions should be made that have the broader interests of the community and strata communities, in the broad sense of that word, at heart. We need to make sure that the balance is struck properly.

I was a bit disturbed with Mr Puglielli’s suggestion that there should be a ban on auctions. I would be concerned if that were the case. He was arguing this will suppress the prices that are received by owners at the sale point. This is obviously not about strata communities, this is a broader point that he has made. I think it is concerning, though, that owners would be prevented from maximising the sale price of their property. I think owners of properties, and there are millions of Victorians who own a property, would be very concerned if they were clamped or prevented from getting the best price for their house or their unit when they sell it. I think this is the largest asset of people, and it would be concerning if that was stripped from them and they were to receive a lesser amount than the full value of their property because of resistance or restrictions that are put in place through the amendment by the Greens. I say of course owners want to get the best price for the asset they own at the time they sell. I do not think anyone should be surprised at that. But the idea that that would be prevented deliberately, pushing down the price of properties, I think would be a concern. I understand the need for trying to ensure that there are adequate properties at a fair price on the market, but that is about supply. That is not about capping or controlling the price of a property at the time of its sale.

I want to indicate that Ms Bath has a number of amendments. These will be discussed tomorrow, as I understand it, in committee, where we will deal with a lot of the matters that surround the large number of amendments that Ms Benham has put forward as shadow minister. This obviously is an omnibus bill that covers so many different areas, but we will discuss those in greater detail tomorrow.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

Thank you, President, I rise to speak on the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, a bill which looks out for the interests of Victorians in residential parks, in rental properties, and across many different aspects of life.

I would like to thank the Minister for Consumer Affairs in the other place for his work fighting every day for a fair deal for Victorian families.

This is a substantial bill which covers many different and varied aspects of consumer affairs, delivering serious and practical reforms which will benefit everyday Victorian households.

One of the core provisions within this bill is the increase in protections for tenants living in Part 4A residential parks.

Residential parks represent a growing portion of Victoria’s housing mix, being commonly used as a more affordable housing option particularly for the elderly.

Last year, the Commissioner for Residential Tenancies released the Life in Residential Parks Report about how regulation of this sector can be improved and the interests of tenants protected.

One of the most important issues which that report raised was that of the complexity in the contracts which tenants were signing.

When people are being offered products which do not have their complex fee structures and other conditions transparently explained upfront, this can lead to them to making well-intentioned financial decisions which can wind up leaving them worse off.

Further, when the contracts being offered at residential parks are complex and difficult to understand, it can make it far more difficult for someone to compare the options and the deals which are available to them.

Being able to shop around allows people to make decisions for themselves about what they want to prioritise.

For many, it might be saving money, but for others it might be location or amenities offered at a particular residential park.

Further, empowering consumers to shop around and understand the deals means that they can have confidence that they are being treated fairly and getting what they sign up for.

The government has already implemented changes which improve disclosure requirements and mandate standard form agreements to make the process of signing up for a site tenancy simpler and more transparent.

This bill proposes to reform how Deferred Management Charges can be levied and how rents can be raised.

Deferred Management Charges have an important role to play in keeping residential parks accessible and affordable for Victorians.

They reduce the cost of initially entering the residential park and move that cost to be charged as an exit fee instead.

Inevitably, when agreeing to an arrangement involving a Deferred Management Charge, site tenants cannot know the precise final figure which they will be charged, given it is an amount to be paid years down the line.

In some cases, when principles of transparency have not been followed in how the final price of the Deferred Management Charge is calculated, some people have been faced with unanticipated, unaffordable amounts on exiting the residential park.

This bill provides for new regulations which govern how a Deferred Management Charge can be calculated, according to transparent methods which give tenants a better deal.

Under these regulations, the new price of the DMC will be calculated in accordance with the initial purchase price of the Part 4A dwelling as well as the duration of the stay.

Further, this bill will impact how residential parks may levy rent on tenants.

Site owners will only be able to increase rent according to the increase in the Consumer Price Index or by a fixed rate set out in the regulations, whichever is higher.

Any attempt to increase rents beyond those criteria will require the consent of at least 75% of the tenants, or through applying to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Other measures to improve transparency in Part 4A agreements in residential parks include giving tenants the right to request an annual agreement check and requiring site owners to provide an annual DMC statement to tenants.

Additionally, site tenants will receive improved security in their tenancy as new reforms will prohibit site owners from evicting tenants without cause at the end of their fixed term site agreement.

Further, this bill also provides for the creation of a public register of residential park operators, to be maintained by Consumer Affairs Victoria, as well as the development of a mandatory code of practice for residential parks.

This will create greater transparency and greater accountability among residential parks, so that prospective tenants can learn more about potential locations and can know what rights they would have if they decide to take up a Part 4A tenancy.

These reforms to how residential parks are run will deliver real benefits to site tenants and prospective site tenants, but they are only one section of what is a long and extensive bill.

Other reforms contained within this bill are directed towards benefiting renters, with reforms which give renters quality of life improvements and greater choice in how they manage their tenancy.

Placing limits on break-lease fees will give renters more autonomy and more agency in how they live and plan their own lives.

One of the most important benefits of renting as opposed to owning your own home is the flexibility that it gives to a person.

Somebody who prefers to move around a lot as a lifestyle choice, or needs to move around a lot for their job benefit from not being tied down to one location by the responsibilities of home ownership: it is much easier to end a tenancy than it is to sell a house.

Additionally, given young people are overwhelmingly renters, many young people also benefit from the flexibility that comes with renting.

Sometimes an offer for the next big step in their career might come through and it would require moving to another city.

Or somebody’s circumstances may change as they enter or exit a relationship.

While it is perfectly justified for a landlord to charge break-lease fees on somebody who has ended a tenancy early to make up for the lost rent, if these fees are too disproportionate, it can become grossly unfair to the renter.

In these cases, it can tie people down who can’t afford to pay a break-lease fee that is too high, preventing them from getting on with their lives, and denying them the very flexibility which is supposed to be the great advantage of being a renter.

To rectify this, this bill proposes that a maximum amount that a renter would have to pay in a break-lease fee would be set based on how much time remains in the tenancy agreement.

Ensuring that these costs are proportionate to the actual rental income which is being lost protects the principle of fairness.

The landlord receives compensation for the lost rent and, subject to negotiations with the tenant, they can receive compensation for the costs of finding a new tenant.

It is also fair to renters who, when considering the next move in their lives, will not be faced with the prospect of a prohibitively expensive break-lease fee designed to make ending the tenancy as unattractive as possible.

Another benefit which this bill will provide to renters is that we are changing the law to make it easier for a renter to ask for an additional key or fob to their property.

There are many good reasons why a person would need a spare key to their home, and it is simply not reasonable for a rental provider to refuse to provide one without a good reason or to charge additional fees for one.

Under this legislation, the renter could be asked to pay for the cost of the key itself, and any other costs directly associated with its procurement.

In a similar vein, we are also protecting the rights of renters to access the properties which they are renting by making it an offence to disable a fob or key unless it is done for a reason permitted under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Reports from renters that their landlords have disabled their access keys to lock them out of their own homes are deeply concerning.

If a person has paid rent late, there are formal processes which a landlord may follow to rectify the situation.

Informal punishments which do not follow due process, such as remotely disabling a key to lock somebody out of their house is not appropriate in these situations, that is why we are making it an offence.

Another important part of this bill which will affect renters comes as part of the portable bond scheme which our government recently introduced.

Passed into legislation as part of the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, the portable bond scheme allows renters to transfer their existing bond from one property onto their next property.

This means that they will not be expected to find the money for a second bond while they are still waiting to get the bond back from their first property.

This is achieved through having the Victorian government guarantee the existing bond with the original rental provider until such a time as the tenancy can be completed and the bond retrieval process fulfilled in the usual way.

If in this process the rental provider’s claim for the bond is successful, the government pays them the cost of the bond, and the renter then owes that money back to the government.

This process is better for renters who no longer have to provide a second bond while moving house; it is also better for rental providers who benefit from a government guarantee on their bonds.

This bill proposes to take this system further, giving renters the ability to pay their bond directly to the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority.

This process makes the bond process simpler for both renters and rental providers, reducing risk, and making sure that both parties know that they can have faith in the management and treatment of the bond.

Another reform being made regarding the treatment of renters relates specifically to the rights of renters who have experienced family or personal violence.

This bill will change the law so that, in instances where family violence has occurred between two co-renters, that it is the perpetrator who is held liable, not the victim survivor, for matters held before VCAT which could involve issues such as the repayment of a bond.

Further protections for victim survivors of family violence contained within this bill will prevent rental providers from discriminating against someone on the basis that they have experienced family violence.

Refusing to let a property on that basis would be an extremely irresponsible and dangerous, that is why this bill would explicitly prohibit it.

Thus far, I have explained several of the key aspects of the bill which relate to the interests of those living in residential parks, as well as the interests of renters across the state.

Another important area which this bill seeks to make changes to is the process of purchasing a home.

Buying a house is a difficult, complex process which brings with it risks and challenges; this means that when buyers cannot trust sellers, the whole exchange can fall apart.

For so many Victorians, buying a home will be one of the most important, and most expensive, purchases they make in their entire lives.

There are people out there who are wealthy enough to buy a new house with what is, to them, pocket change, but that is not most Victorian families.

Most Victorians save for years for a deposit, and then spend years and decades of their lives paying off a mortgage: these are the people who are set to benefit most from these reforms.

These reforms include requiring that real estate agents publish a seller’s reserve price no less than seven days prior to an auction and, after a sale, to provide key information about the sale to Consumer Affairs Victoria.

These reforms will increase transparency in property prices and will give prospective buyers a better idea of what price a seller is looking for and what comparable properties in the area have sold for.

I haven’t had the time to go over every aspect of the bill, which goes to show how extensive this bill is, covering many different aspects of consumer law.

I have been able to reference some of measures and some of the ways that we are changing the housing system so that it can work in favour of ordinary Victorians.

Whether that be ensuring that residential parks operate with transparency, ensuring that those who sign up for a site tenancy know what they are agreeing to.

Whether than be expanding on our renters’ rights agenda.

We have already delivered more than 150 improvements to renters’ rights since first entering office, and with this bill we are adding further to those rights, because renters also deserve fair and dignified treatment.

Or, finally, whether that be improving transparency and reporting standards on the sale of homes, giving prospective buyers better, more reliable information about what they can expect to pay for a home.

These reforms are helping us to create a housing system in this state which is fairer, more transparent, and more workable for ordinary people.

You shouldn’t need a law degree or a cert 4 in real estate to be able to get a place in a residential park, navigate the rental market, or to buy your own home.

Giving Victorians more choice and agency in how they go about making the big decisions relating to their housing situation goes to our core values on this side of the house.

Fairness, looking out for the interests of working people, giving people more choice and control over their lives, and ensuring that markets can operate with integrity.

In light of all this, I commend the bill to the chamber.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

This bill amends various acts across several areas to ensure life becomes easier, safer, and more affordable, for all Victorians.

And there are many Victorians from different walks of life that will benefit from the omnibus changes made in this bill.

If you rent, the changes in this bill make it fairer, easier, and more affordable.

If you’re buying, this bill makes changes to improve transparency and conduct in the real estate market.

If you live in a building run by an owners corporation, we’re making it easier to pay the fees.

And we’re protecting Victorians by strengthening deterrence and enforcement of the illegal tobacco market.

Renters

I want to spend some time speaking on the changes in this bill that will strengthen the rights of renters.

Because this government has consistently supported renters in making life fairer, more affordable, and more secure.

More than 150 rental reforms have been delivered by this Labor government.

We’ve banned rental bidding.

We’ve ended no-fault evictions.

We’ve introduced minimum standards for rental homes.

We’ve given bodies extra powers to clamp down on excessive rent increases.

And we’ve introduced measures such as 90-day notice periods and the Portable Rental Bond Scheme to make life fairer for renters in Victoria.

There’s Rental Dispute Resolution Victoria, which right now is offering renters a free service to try and resolve disputes before going to costly and lengthy VCAT proceedings.

This bill goes further for renters.

Under this bill, we’re capping the cost of breaking a lease.

It means renters know where they stand and stops excessive charges for breaking a lease imposed on renters.

With this bill, for lease agreements under five years, the maximum compensation for lost rent is four weeks’ rent if less than a quarter of the agreement has run.

And this is scaled depending on how long the lease has run for.

If the lease has run for between a quarter and three-quarters of its duration, the cost of three weeks’ rent, and for a lease that has run for more than three-quarters of its term, 1 weeks’ rent can be charged for breaking a lease.

Life brings changes.

Jobs change.

Families grow.

Perhaps someone needs to provide care for a family member.

These situations and sometimes abrupt changes in circumstances can be stressful and costly enough, without the added pressure of high costs for breaking a lease.

Renters should be able to adapt to change without excessive costs, while still maintaining that landlords are compensated for a break in a lease agreement.

So, under this bill, everyone knows what can be charged for breaking a lease, and renters know it won’t be excessive.

Further changes in this bill that will benefit renters relate to the provisions of keys and fobs.

Under this bill, renters have the right to request additional keys and security devices, and rental providers can’t unreasonably refuse or charge an excessive fee for them.

There are various circumstances in which tenants may need an extra key.

An older renter may need an extra key to provide to a care worker, enabling them to enter and exit without giving unnecessary stress for the tenant, who may find mobility difficult.

This bill also provides for a new offence where a landlord or agent disables a key or fob outside of a permitted circumstance.

This will prevent landlords from unfairly using this tactic as leverage in disputes to force a tenant to comply with their wishes.

I’ve already mentioned that – since July 1 – the Portable Rental Bond Scheme is now operational.

This bill will enable renters to pay their bond straight to the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority, rather through a provider or agent.

This change makes it clearer, safer and easier for tenants to pay their bond and avoids unnecessary circumstances where things can go wrong or money lost.

There is no need for money to be transferred via a landlord or agent to the Residential Tenancies Authority, and this bill makes a new offence to stop a rental provider from refusing an agreement with a renter because they choose to pay direct.

There are more than 1.5 million renters in Victoria.

And the Victorian Labor government has, and continues to, make life fairer, easier and more affordable for you.

And this is about fairness. For many people, renting their home is the single biggest cost that comes out of their pay packet.

Through these reforms, and the many others already implemented, we’re alleviating some of the stress and financial burden that comes with renting your home.

Other changes

As mentioned, the bill makes several other changes and I’ll briefly touch on them.

In the property market, we’re improving transparency to better inform prospective buyers and sellers and residents in the local area.

Section 32 statements must be available to prospective buyers much further in advance than what is currently the case.

And once a property is sold, prices must be published within seven days of the sale becoming unconditional and the Statement of Information stays online for 18 months rather than being handed over on request.

In addition, agents must publish the reserve or asking price at least seven days before an auction or fixed-date sale.

These changes will save time for Victorians, who often spend their free time inspecting houses that they’ve no idea if they can afford or not. This is despite the seller and the agent knowing the reserve.

This information should be public – it makes life easier for everyone.

The Bill fast-tracks the financial hardship recommendations of the Expert Panel review rather than waiting for the full reform package.

Owner-occupiers in hardship get access to payment plans, with statutory protection from penalty interest and debt recovery while a plan is on foot.

A missed quarterly fee should not turn into penalty interest and a debt collector at the door.

Strata is where first home buyers live, where downsizers live, and where a lot of pensioners live. It stopped being a luxury market a long time ago, and around one in five Victorians are in one now.

What people in hardship need is a payment plan and a bit of breathing room. What they have been getting is a letter of demand.

And finally I just want to touch on changes made in this bill relating to the illicit tobacco market.

Labor has made comprehensive reforms in this area.

Labor established the tobacco licensing scheme to flush out organized crime in this space.

And these reforms in this bill support that work, giving further powers in enforcement to strengthen the regulatory framework in this space.

Victoria has made great strides in regulating tobacco.

It is a product that has a high chance of killing you.

Smoking kills around 4,500 Victorians every year.

It costs our economy an estimated $3.7 billion in health and other associated costs.

This bill makes further strides in preventing the harm from tobacco, and we should continue to make necessary reforms in this space to stop illegal practices and protect Victorians from its harmful effects.

 Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (22:19): The government has a number of amendments to the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, and I ask that they now be circulated. Given the lateness of the hour, I do not propose to debate them or talk about them in much detail, as they will be canvassed in a lot more detail during the committee stage tomorrow.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (22:19): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.