05 April 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — I was interested to note the summary of the comments of the member for Richmond where he indicated that at this stage the opposition would not be opposing this bill but reserved its position. Obviously it has taken some time to come to grips with this legislation. It is interesting that at this stage the opposition position is support but that that may change. It is instructive to the approach that has been taken by the former government, which is now in opposition.
I was interested to note in an article in the Age of 21 March last year a quote from the member for Richmond, who was then the Minister for Housing. According to the Age, he insisted that ‘people who push drugs on their public housing neighbours were ruining scores of lives’. I think we would all approve of that. He went on to say, ‘These people really should give up their right to subsidised housing’, and I think we would all agree with that comment too.
To me, this debate should centre on very simple principles. Are we going to allow a known loophole in the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 to remain? Are we going to allow drug traffickers and associated offenders to continue trafficking and not do anything about it? Does this Parliament recognise and accept the responsibility that we have to public housing tenants? Finally, do we really want children and families in public housing to live in safety and grow up in a secure environment?
They are the basic principles we are talking about here. We on this side of the house believe those things are fundamental. The Parliament needs to take up the challenge and resolve this problem. We are strong on crime on this side. We are prepared to put a stake in the ground and make a stand on loopholes that need to be fixed.
Once again the Baillieu government has been left to fill the gaps left by the former government.
The former minister acknowledged there was a problem and in fact referred to the policy. He conducted a pilot program. No doubt he considered it but in the end absolutely nothing of substance was done to solve the problem. That is what we are here doing — trying to solve the problem that the former government was well and truly aware of but failed to fix.
Mr Eren — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I notice that the member is clearly attacking the opposition on previous policy and has drifted way off the bill before the house. I ask you to call him back into order.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Beattie) — Order! There is no point of order, but the member will stick to the bill.
Mr Weller — Frivolous!
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Beattie) — Order! I do hope that was not a reflection on the Chair.
Mr Weller — No.
Mr MORRIS — Nor, I hope, was it a reflection on the matter before the house, because it is anything but a frivolous matter. Given the very limited time I have left I want to move on specifically to — —
Mr Eren — Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.
Quorumformed.
Mr MORRIS — I have even less time now, and I want specifically to address proposed sections 250A and 250B. The current section 250 allows the director to evict a tenant if it can be demonstrated that the tenant has used rented premises or permitted their use for a specific illegal process.
The alternative action is to deal with the matter under section 263. However, rather than there being a termination notice period of 14 days under section 250, there is a termination period of 120 days or 4 months. Clearly that is not acceptable in this case.
The intent of this amendment to the act is to ensure the safety, security and wellbeing of public housing tenants.
Currently there is no provision that allows the director to evict a tenant who engaged in trafficking, manufacturing or cultivation in a common area. That is the crux of the problem. It is about the common areas — hallways, stairwells, car parks, playgrounds and those sorts of areas. Additionally, as this relates in part to the comments by SARC (Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee) there is a difficulty in that it is necessary to determine if an illegal activity constitutes use of premises, and the question is whether the premises were integral to and facilitated the commission of a particular offence.
That is where the case that was referred to earlier fell over. In that case the director applied to evict a tenant. Some of the offences were said to have occurred on common property, and in fact the VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) member referred to that difficulty in the decision.
Clearly the current legislation does not work. SARC addressed the issue and the bottom line to that is to include the element of use in rented premises would undermine the intent of government policy. The concept of use is not relevant in the context of these policy objectives.
I turn briefly to the issue of proposed section 250B. I was interested to hear the member for Richmond say that in relation to 250B there was no evidentiary burden. In fact proposed section 250B(3) indicates that the director may only give a tenant notice if the tenant has been convicted or found guilty of that offence. I do not think there is an issue of evidentiary burden; it is there as subclause (3) of proposed section 250B.
In addition to that, all appeal rights remain intact. All the checks and all the balances are there despite the points alleged by the member for Richmond. A regulatory impact statement is still required and that rigorous scrutiny that these regulations have to go through is still there. The process is still there. The regulations are still tabled in this house.
Finally, of course, the opportunity for disallowance remains. It is not correct to say that the Parliament does not have the opportunity to scrutinise any regulations made under the act, but I would suggest that had this clause in fact been part of the act when the issues were occurring last year, the former minister would have had the opportunity to act and to protect the affected families that he claims to want to protect.
Briefly, in conclusion, public housing tenants have the same right as every other citizen of Victoria to live in safety and to have their children grow up in a safe and secure environment. These assist in that task, and amendments will I commend the bill to the house.
Legislative Assembly 5 April 2011
Printer Friendly Version...