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.