Details emerging from the Victorian Legislative Council’s Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiring into the demolition of 44 towers in Melbourne have unearthed reasons why the towers should be demolished, but also confusion over the nature of public versus “private” community housing that costs residents more in rent, and a general lack of transparency in the process.
When Homes Victoria made the decision to demolish 44 public housing towers in Flemington and North Melbourne, South Yarra, and Richmond, housing about 10,000 residents, the argument was that the buildings were “past their use by date”.
There were structural issues, poor accessibility and the towers were not compliant with modern safety standards. Worse, they would cost the state $2.3 billion over 20 years to maintain the towers in their current condition – far more than the cost of any other public housing stock. The agency promised a transformation to mixed tenure developments to accommodate 30,000 people by 2051.
In one of the salvos against demolition of the towers, researchers at RMIT weighed in on the debate, pointing to a parliamentary inquiry, which has now called for an immediate halt to the project.
The researchers contributed two articles to The Fifth Estate. One noting that the Victorian Parliament launched an inquiry in 2024 into the state government’s decision to proceed with the demolition of the towers.
One article argues that there were no significant reasons to knock down the towers when retrofit was a better option. And in addition, there was the human cost of relocation of residents that needed to be considered, particularly for elderly people.
Another team of researchers later provided a waste and carbon analysis of the demolition for TFE.
Now RMIT has continued its momentum with a new report that suggests that funds saved from demolition could deliver significant social, economic and environmental benefits, focusing on the case study of one of the towers, 351 Barkly Street, Brunswick, as an example.
Meanwhile, damning findings of the final parliamentary report tabled on 2 December continue to paint a controversial picture of the proposal.
The government “cease using the term social housing” when it was aware that an estate would be community housing only, remove the umbrella term and provide clear and separate definitions for the Housing Act 1983
Among the concerns are the committee’s calls to halt the development, and the government now has six months to respond.
The Legislative Council Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry found the development was questionable, stating the government “failed to provide key documents such as cost benefit analysis, feasibility studies”, and at every turn tried to obstruct the investigation.
When the committee ordered the documents related to the redevelopment be produced, the government “only produced 12 of those documents” and “claimed executive privilege” over the other 146 documents.
The committee’s chair and Liberal member of the Victorian Legislative Council (VLC), Joe McCracken, said the inquiry attempted to answer, “one simple question: should the government have demolished and rebuilt the towers, or were other options viable?”
He said that “the government is not and cannot be the sole judge in deciding when [executive] privilege applies.
“The government’s justification for not producing the documents is simply wrong. The Victorian Constitution clearly gives parliament the power to demand documents.”
Without the documents, “it becomes very difficult to understand why the government chose their course of action as opposed to the other options that could have been available.”
When the committee ordered the documents related to the redevelopment be produced, the government “only produced 12 of those documents” and “claimed executive privilege” over the other 146 documents.
The committee is recommending that all documents that have the claim of executive privilege be submitted to an independent arbiter to determine whether a legitimate claim exists in accordance with the relevant legislative council standing order.
Some committee members who are part of the current government submitted a minority report arguing that there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision to replace the towers.
Ryan Batchelor, committee member and Labor member of the VLC, said in the documents submitted that there was evidence of many issues.
This includes failing sewer stacks, mould in walls caused by sewage, concrete cancer, structural challenges from the unique construction and design of the tower, ceiling heights being too low for modifications and evidence that 95 per cent of the lifts in the tower cannot fit a stretcher, which means if a resident calls an ambulance, there would be accessibility issues.
“There are fire safety risks. The units are too hot in summer and too cold in winter. The electrical systems do not meet residents’ needs, and there is a failure to meet disability standards,” he said.
The report recognised this in its findings.
However, the inquiry also found that the residents experienced significant trauma, distress and anxiety from proposals to demolish the buildings – with those quoted in the report saying they didn’t find out about needing to move out until they saw it announced on TV, causing “massive panic” among residents.
Another resident wrote to the committee saying they have been “frequently sick” from the shock, stress and anxiety from the fear of being homeless. The Yarra City Council also said that the government had no prior consultation with local stakeholders or residents and caused their residents in Yarra “considerable distress”.
The inquiry received more than 800 submissions and held five days of public hearings, including at and near the towers.
McCracken writes in his foreword that while Homes Victoria seems to recognise this, there was “significant work” to be done to rebuild trust.
“There are fire safety risks. The units are too hot in summer and too cold in winter. The electrical systems do not meet residents’ needs, and there is a failure to meet disability standards”
The results
In the end, the committee made 36 findings and 21 recommendations. A majority of these findings and recommendations involved the lack of transparency, documentation and community consultation from Homes Victoria and the Victorian government.
Notable findings and recommendations include:
- the government did not discuss or make any decision on its ground lease model (where developers lease the land from the government long term), and residents are unsure if they would be able to return to their homes in any of the new development
- that the government ensure public ownership of the land, including the ground lease model, which keeps the sites in public ownership
- that the target social housing component be increased by “at least 10 per cent” on its current levels
- the model lacks accountability and transparency and may expose the state to significant financial risk, so recommending that the government both release the documentation for why the model was selected over other non-profit models for delivering affordable housing, and cease pursuing it and consider other options
- that the government should publish a case-by-case approach to why demolition is preferred over refurbishing and retrofitting for each tower
- that while the Supreme Court of Victoria found that Homes Victoria’s decision did limit human rights, the limitation was justified and, realistically, that it wouldn’t have made a different decision even if it heard from sufficient stakeholders beforehand; in addition, that cabinet confidentiality should be upheld. This decision is currently being appealed
- that Homes Victoria didn’t properly inform residents of the difference between public and community housing, particularly the differences in rental payments and utility bills, and relied on the term “social housing” to transfer public housing tenants into a privatised model of housing
- that the government “cease using the term social housing” when it was aware that an estate would be community housing only, remove the umbrella term and provide clear and separate definitions for the Housing Act 1983
- that the state government confirm whether any further tower redevelopment will be rebuilt as public housing, and advocate to the federal government to remit the GST payable on public housing construction and maintenance costs to bring public housing costs in line with community housing costs
Wait, public housing costs more to build?
Read about this in part 2, coming soon.
~with Tina Perinotto