On 13 July 2026, Victorian Minister for Renters Paul Edbrooke MP formally responded to landlord concerns raised earlier in Parliament by Matthew Guy MP. The delayed response confirmed the government’s position on safety checks, VCAT, rent arrears and rental reform, but offered only limited answers to the deeper questions landlords have been raising about system costs, case delays and policy balance.
On 13 June 2026, Australian Property Owners Alliance (APOA) held a landlord forum and invited Victorian MP Matthew Guy to speak directly with community members.
At the forum, landlords raised a number of long-running issues affecting the private rental market, including rising compliance costs, gas and electrical safety checks, VCAT delays, rent arrears and the position of landlords under the current rental system.
Four days later, Matthew Guy took those issues into the Victorian Parliament.
On 13 July, Minister for Renters Paul Edbrooke MP finally issued a formal written response.
The fact that the government responded means the concerns raised by the landlord community have entered a formal parliamentary process. However, the response mainly restated the government’s existing policy position and did not fully address the practical difficulties raised by landlords.
Related background
From Community Forum to Parliament: APOA landlords were heard
This Newsletter story records the earlier landlord forum, Matthew Guy MP bringing community concerns into Parliament, and APOA’s first formal appearance in Hansard.
From community forum to Victorian Parliament
On 17 June, Matthew Guy raised an Adjournment Matter in the Victorian Parliament, relaying issues discussed at the APOA landlord forum to the Minister for Renters.
The parliamentary speech was not about removing tenant protections, nor about asking the government to choose one side over another. It was about asking the government to recognise the real costs and risks carried by private landlords under the current system.
Private landlords provide a significant share of Victoria’s rental housing. Many are not large corporations or professional institutions, but ordinary families holding one or two investment properties for retirement planning, income support or long-term family financial arrangements.
When safety checks, maintenance standards, land tax, insurance, interest rates and property management fees continue to rise, whether landlords are willing to remain in the long-term rental market ultimately affects the supply of rental housing.
Similarly, when rent arrears cases take a long time to be heard, landlords still have to pay mortgages, management fees, insurance and repair costs during the waiting period. Those costs do not disappear.
This is the voice APOA wanted the government to hear.
The minister supports maintaining the current safety check regime
In his response, Paul Edbrooke stated that the government would not remove existing gas and electrical safety check requirements for rental properties.
The minister argued that the age of a property is not the only factor that creates safety risks, and that the government would continue to maintain these basic protections for renters.
APOA supports safe and habitable rental housing and recognises the role regular checks can play in identifying ageing equipment, installation issues and potential hazards.
The question landlords raised was not whether safety matters. The question was whether the current regime can be made more reasonable, targeted and proportionate to actual risk.
For example, newly built properties have already gone through building approvals, installation checks and compliance processes. For a recently completed property with new equipment still under warranty, it is reasonable to ask whether the same immediate repeat-check cycle that applies to older housing is always necessary.
The government’s response confirmed that the regime will not change, but did not address whether safety checks could be better targeted according to property age, equipment condition, existing records or actual risk.
Safety and policy efficiency are not in conflict. A mature policy should protect renters while avoiding unnecessary duplicate costs.
VCAT independence is not the core issue landlords raised
On VCAT, the minister stated that the government would not pressure an independent tribunal or ask it to make decisions more favourable to any particular group.
That point itself is not controversial.
APOA has never asked the government to interfere in individual decisions or to make VCAT favour landlords. An independent tribunal is essential to a fair system.
The real concern is whether VCAT has enough resources, whether cases can be heard within a reasonable time, and whether orders can be enforced promptly and effectively once made.
For a rent arrears matter, every extra week of delay can add to the loss. During that waiting period, the landlord continues to carry mortgage payments, insurance, management fees, repairs and other holding costs.
For an ordinary family with one investment property, several months of lost rent can disrupt an entire household budget.
Reducing the issue to “the government will not pressure an independent tribunal” avoids the main question.
Independence and efficiency are different issues. A tribunal can remain fully independent while still needing sufficient staff, hearing capacity, digital systems and enforcement pathways.
Rent arrears can still end a tenancy, but process costs remain unanswered
The minister emphasised that non-payment of rent remains a valid ground for ending a tenancy.
He also noted that the current process gives renters an opportunity to remedy arrears and avoid losing their home, describing this as a matter of fairness.
As a matter of law, rent arrears can still lead to termination. But the concern raised by landlords is not only whether termination is legally possible. It is how long the process takes, how much arrears accumulate, and whether losses can realistically be recovered.
A legal right on paper does not mean that right can be exercised quickly or at low cost.
When landlords must issue notices, apply to VCAT, wait for a hearing, obtain orders and then deal with enforcement, the gap between the legal right and the practical outcome can be substantial.
If the debt is ultimately not recovered, the financial loss is usually borne by the landlord personally.
The minister’s response emphasised renters’ opportunity to remedy arrears, but did not explain how landlords should be protected when the process keeps extending, nor whether the government will improve processing times or enforcement mechanisms.
The response narrows the issue into “landlords versus renters”
The response stated that Labor created the Minister for Renters portfolio to protect the interests of millions of Victorian renters.
It also characterised Matthew Guy’s request as seeking to reduce renter protections, increase costs and make evictions easier, and stated that the government would not roll back relevant reforms.
This framing turns a discussion about system efficiency, policy costs and rental market sustainability into a simple political contrast: supporting renters or supporting landlords.
But that is not how the rental market actually works.
Renters need safe, stable and affordable housing. Landlords need a system that is reasonable, enforceable and allows risk to be understood in advance. These goals are not inherently opposed.
If policy focuses only on protection for one side while overlooking the costs and risks borne by the people supplying rental housing, more private landlords may eventually leave the market.
Reduced rental supply does not lead to better outcomes for renters.
A formal response, but limited answers to practical questions
The significance of the minister’s response is that landlord community concerns were formally brought into Parliament and received a written government reply.
That step is worth recording.
However, the substance of the reply mostly restated existing policy rather than addressing the specific practical issues raised by landlords.
It still leaves key questions unanswered, including:
- how VCAT backlogs and long waiting times will be improved;
- whether VCAT staffing and hearing resources will be increased;
- whether safety check requirements can be refined according to property risk and age;
- how rising compliance and holding costs for private landlords will be considered;
- how landlord losses will be controlled when arrears processes continue for long periods;
- how the government will assess the long-term effect of current reforms on rental housing supply.
The landlord community is not looking for a simple statement that the government will not change policy. It is looking for serious examination of how those policies operate in real life.
APOA will continue to support evidence-based discussion
The minister’s response does not mean the discussion is over.
Instead, it shows why the landlord community needs to present fuller examples and data showing how policy works in practice.
APOA members have already been actively discussing the response, with many sharing experiences involving VCAT, rent arrears, property safety checks and compliance management.
Those real cases will help the community identify common issues and provide a stronger factual basis for future engagement with MPs, government departments and relevant institutions.
APOA will continue recording government responses, parliamentary discussion and community experience, and will keep advocating for a more rational, balanced and evidence-based public conversation.
The goal is not to weaken reasonable renter protections or ask any institution to favour landlords.
The goal is a rental system that protects renter safety, respects landlords’ legal rights and maintains long-term rental housing supply.
Landlord voices have entered Parliament.
The next step is making sure these issues are accurately understood and genuinely answered.