In MTECC News edition 25.05, the author identified an issue with s 34D Subdivision Act 1998, in particular, an amendment made in 2021 that prevented owners corporations easily amending plans of subdivision where there were a minority of dissenting members. The Victorian Parliament is seeking to correct this issue in the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2026.

The Bill is a broad consumer-law omnibus bill that touches everything from tobacco licensing to residential tenancies. It was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 3 June 2026, and as at 16 July 2026 is still sitting at that second reading stage — so it has not passed yet.

Within Part 10 is a single, fairly narrow amendment to s 34D Subdivision Act. Clause 114 inserts a new paragraph, s 34D(3)(ba), into section 34D, which is the provision letting owners corporation members apply to VCAT for orders relating to owners corporation plans — including an order consenting on a dissenting member’s behalf to something proposed under sections 32 or 33.

Right now, as a result of the current language of s 34D, VCAT can only override a dissenting member under s 34D(1)(b) if that member (or group) actually owns more than half of the total lot entitlement, and every other member has consented. This represents a very narrow and improbable gateway, since it is usually the case that an owners corporation would want to apply to amend a plan where the majority are seeking it (as opposed to the minority). The new paragraph adds (that is, restores) a second, alternative route: VCAT will also be able to make the order where more than half of the owners corporation’s membership — holding more than half of the total lot entitlements between them — has consented, even if the dissenters themselves do not hold a majority stake, provided the benefits of the proposed action to the subdivision as a whole outweigh the disadvantage to those who did not agree.

The government’s own explanation, from the Statement of Compatibility, is that this “restores VCAT’s ability to make an order… where more than half of the membership of the owners corporation previously consented to the action in question,” and that allowing an order under either ground “increases lot owner access to VCAT and promotes the right to a fair hearing.”

What is unclear is what occurs where exactly half of the membership dissents or consents, given the relevant condition for each is ‘more than half’.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation