Hansard debates

Gabrielle WILLIAMS (Dandenong – Minister for Government Services, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Public and Active Transport) (10:38): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Estate Agents, Residential Tenancies and Other Acts Amendment (Funding) Bill 2024 (the Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Estate Agents Act 1980 (EA Act) and Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (RT Act) to authorise funds from the Victorian Property Fund (VPF) and the Residential Tenancies Fund (RTF) established under those Acts to be utilised to fund alternative dispute resolution and consumer advocacy and assistance services.

The Bill will also amend the Business Licensing Authority Act 1998 (BLA Act) to close the Sex Work Regulation Fund as part of the final phase of the decriminalisation of sex work in Victoria.

Finally, the Bill will amend the EA Act and Public Records Act 1973 (PR Act) to abolish the Estate Agents Council (EAC) and Public Records Advisory Council (PRAC).

Human Rights Issues

Human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are the right to freedom of expression (section 15(2) of the Charter), the right to freedom of assembly and association (section 16 of the Charter) and the entitlement to participate in public life (section 18(1) of the Charter).

Abolition of EAC and PRAC

Right to freedom of expression (section 15(2))

Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether within or outside Victoria and whether orally; or in writing; or in print; or by way of art; or in another medium chosen by him or her.

The EAC provided appointed industry and community representatives an opportunity to advise the government on the operation of the EA Act. Similarly, the PRAC provided members with a broad range of skills and expertise an opportunity to advise on the operation of the PR Act. Abolishing EAC and PRAC removes the ability of persons to express their views to the government as a member of an advisory body in a formal setting.

However, the Bill does not prevent persons from expressing their views through other means outside of this formal setting. Alternative avenues to consult with the government are open to those wishing to express their views, including through Ministerial correspondence and invitations to provide feedback on issues papers or policy proposals via public and other consultation processes. Government will maintain ongoing engagement with relevant industry, community and sector stakeholders to inform policy development and practice in the regulation of the real estate industry and the administration of the PR Act.

I therefore, consider that any interference with the right to freedom of expression resulting from these provisions is negligible and a reasonable limitation that can be justified in a democratic society.

Right to freedom of assembly and freedom of association (section 16)

Section 16(1) provides that every person has the right of peaceful assembly. Section 16(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions.

The right to freedom of assembly may be engaged in a limited way in relation to the abolition of EAC and PRAC. Whilst the abolition of these bodies may somewhat limit the ability of persons meeting to exchange ideas and information as members of EAC or PRAC, as membership of these advisory bodies was subject to a formal appointment process, the membership is not so broad as to be considered a ‘freedom of assembly’ right. The abolition does not in any way impede the right of persons to form their own lobby or advocacy groups to pursue policy objectives in relation to the real estate or public records sectors.

Further, the right to freedom of association may also be engaged as abolishing EAC and PRAC prevents persons gathering as members of EAC or PRAC. However, the Bill does not prevent persons to gather, as well as to exchange ideas and information as concerned stakeholders on issues concerning the EA Act or PR Act.

I therefore consider that any interference with the right to freedom of association and freedom of assembly are a minimal and reasonable limitation that can be justified in a democratic society.

Taking part in public life (section 18(1))

Section 18(1) of the Charter provides that every person in Victoria has the right, and is to have the opportunity, without discrimination, to participate in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

The right to take part in public life is engaged in relation to abolishing EAC and PRAC. These provisions engage the right to take part in public life as the abolition limits persons from holding membership, and in doing so may be perceived to limit participation in issues relating to the operation of the EA Act or PR Act.

However, the formal abolition of EAC or PRAC does not remove the ability to participate in decisions regarding the EAC Act or the PR Act. Alternative avenues to advocate or consult with government on policy reform remain open, ensuring that persons may continue to take part in public life. For instance, consumers, advocacy groups and industry representatives will continue to be able to provide industry advice through public and other consultation processes.

Therefore, to the extent that these provisions impose a restriction on a person’s right to take part in public life, I consider they are a minimal and reasonable limitation that can be justified in a democratic society.

Conclusion

I am therefore of the view that the Bill is compatible with the Charter.

The Hon Gabrielle Williams MP

Minister for Consumer Affairs