It is astonishing how inadequate the Victorian legislation is for strata owners and their commonly assumed rights compared with that in NSW, Queensland and Western Australia.

I write this as Victorian owners still await the state Government’s release of its Expert Panel review of reform of the Victorian OC Act last year, and the Government’s response to that report, if any.

For the information of Victorian owners here, I have a governance case awaiting a decision from the Victorian Consumer and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in April that arises from deficiencies in the legislation. The point is not whether I win or lose anything at VCAT this time — that could occur on either the substance of the claim or on a technicality. The point is having to make such a claim in the first place. It would be unthinkable in most other states.

I have written to the Victorian Government urging it to address several significant gaps in Victoria’s owners corporation governance framework as it finalises its response to an Expert Panel Review of the Owners Corporations Act 2006.

The submission argues that Victoria’s legislation, while covering a growing proportion of the state’s residents, appears framed for an earlier era and compares unfavourably with the strata laws of New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia. Four specific governance deficiencies are identified.

Right to place motions on AGM agendas

The most fundamental gap identified is that the Owners Corporations Act 2006 does not expressly give lot owners a statutory right to require their motions to be included on the agenda of a general meeting before it is circulated. In practice, this allows committees or managers — particularly those aligned with developer interests — to exclude legitimate owner motions from AGM agendas. By contrast, NSW, Queensland, and WA all have explicit legislative provisions requiring that properly submitted owner motions be included on general meeting agendas. The submission notes that Victoria appears to be the only major Australian strata jurisdiction without such a provision, and that this gap has given rise to a current proceeding before VCAT.

Right to observe committee meetings

Victorian legislation is also silent on whether non-committee lot owners have any general right to attend committee meetings as observers. In large schemes, this can produce opaque decision-making by committees closely aligned with developer or manager interests, with little transparency for ordinary owners. Queensland and NSW both provide statutory rights for non-member owners to attend committee meetings as observers, while preserving the committee’s control over proceedings. The submission argues these models are readily adaptable to Victoria and strike an appropriate balance between transparency and efficiency.

Proxy cap circumvention in large schemes

While Victoria has introduced a five per cent proxy cap, the submission identifies scope for this limit to be circumvented in large developments by distributing proxies among multiple associated persons acting for the same developer or faction. This can entrench developer-related control of an owners corporation long after the initial development phase, with heightened risks of conflicts of interest in contracting, maintenance decisions, and broader governance.

The Queensland model is cited as a more robust approach: it both time-limits developer proxy appointments and prohibits their use for sensitive decisions such as committee elections and the engagement of managers or service contractors. The submission calls for Victoria to strengthen practical enforcement of proxy limits, including by clarifying how proxies held by “associated persons” or related entities should be treated, and introducing disclosure requirements where proxies are connected to a developer.

Appeal and enforcement pathways

The fourth issue concerns the accessibility of appeal and enforcement mechanisms for non-monetary VCAT orders in owners corporation matters. Under current Victorian law, appeals on questions of law and enforcement of non-monetary orders generally lie to or through the Supreme Court, which can make challenging complex governance decisions prohibitively expensive for individual lot owners. The submission suggests exploring more accessible intermediate appeal pathways, along the lines available in other jurisdictions, to reduce cost and complexity for owners seeking to clarify or enforce governance rights.

Proposed reforms and conclusion

The submission proposes four targeted legislative amendments: codifying an express owner right to place motions on general meeting agendas (with safeguards against vexatious or unlawful motions); providing a statutory right for owners to attend committee meetings as non-voting observers on reasonable notice; strengthening the proxy cap by addressing associated-person arrangements and restricting proxy use for sensitive decisions such as committee elections and manager appointments; and improving appeal and enforcement pathways for non-monetary VCAT orders.

It argues these reforms could be achieved with relatively modest legislative change but would have significant practical impact for the hundreds of thousands of Victorians living in strata-titled housing. Left unaddressed, the governance limitations identified risk undermining investor confidence in Victorian strata as an asset class, as governance uncertainty contributes to poor decision-making, deferred maintenance, and higher risk profiles for buildings. The submission requests an indication of whether these matters fall within the scope of the Government’s current legislative work.

Some links of interest:

https://www.docklandsnews.com.au/new-and-amended-legislation-for-owners-corporations-not-anytime-soon

https://www.docklandsnews.com.au/time-to-get-organised-apartment-owners-of-melbourne

https://www.docklandsnews.com.au/vcat-ruling-limits-ocs-ability-to-manage-their-buildings

https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/expert-panel-review-owners-corporation-laws