I’m a New Zealander who moved to Melbourne, fell in love with this city, and fell in love with a man. I decided to build my life here. I paid my taxes. I followed the rules. I trusted the system. When I found out I was pregnant, I found a rental property, signed a lease, and believed, the way most people believe - that the laws in place were there to protect my family.

I’m not writing this out of anger. I’m writing this because I believe in this country, I believe in better, and I believe that when good people understand what is broken, they fix it.
This is Malakai’s story. And it is a story about what happens when a law sounds like protection but isn’t quite there yet.

The problem with the law: My newborn baby, who had no choice about the air he breathed or the home he was born into, was exposed to toxic mould at levels so severe that an independent building scientist declared our home uninhabitable. There was no legal standard in place to have prevented it, no measurement that could have caught it earlier, and no definition in Victorian law that could have protected him.
That is what this petition is asking to change.
Victorian tenancy law states that rental properties must be “mould-free.”
That sounds like protection. But without a definition, a measurement, or a standard behind it - it isn’t enough.

That phrase “mould-free” has no legal definition. No testing standard. No spore count threshold. No methodology. No requirement for independent assessment. Whether your home is mould-free is currently determined by judgment rather than science, not by the kinds of objective measurements that professional building scientists use every day.

Compare that to heating law: an appliance either works or it doesn’t. You can test it. An expert can verify it. It’s binary. It’s measurable. Mould-free should be exactly the same. The tools to measure it already exist. Building scientists use them every single day. The law simply does not yet require anyone to use them.

There are also other gaps worth understanding.

1. Landlords are currently only required to disclose mould if they have received a formal repair notice. If complaints are responded to informally - without ever being documented as a formal repair notice - no disclosure is required. This means the disclosure obligation, as currently written, can be missed entirely through informal responses to tenant concerns.
2. Remediation is undefined - there is currently no legal distinction between treating the surface appearance of mould and addressing the structural cause.
3. Compensation cannot run from when concerns were first raised - only from when the underlying cause was formally identified. And when a property has been assessed and found to have significant mould or water damage issues, there is currently no obligation to disclose that finding upon sale or re-letting.

These are not insurmountable problems:

They are gaps - and gaps can be filled.
It is 2026. And we have a law that contains the word “mould-free” without defining what it means. 

In 2026 - when mould is becoming more prevalent in Victorian housing than at any point in recent history. When thousands of homes built during Victoria’s construction boom are now ageing and their structural defects are beginning to show. When the Victorian Government’s own research confirms that water damage is the single most reported defect in Victorian building complaints, insurance claims and dispute resolution - and the problem is accelerating, not slowing down.*

In 2026 - when we know more about the health consequences of mould exposure than ever before - we have an opportunity to bring this law up to the standard that Victorian families deserve.

Who can make this change: I want to be clear about something - because it matters to me that this is understood fairly.
I do not blame the VCAT member who heard our case. She was doing her job with care and professionalism. She worked within the limits of what the law allowed her to do and I have enormous respect for the work she did within those limits.

I do not blame the individual inspectors, the council officers, or the people at Consumer Affairs Victoria who told me they were sorry but were unable to help. They were working within a framework that needed more to offer them.

The people who have the power to change this and who I am respectfully and genuinely asking to act - are these:

The Hon. Harriet Shing MP - Minister for Housing and Building, Victoria. The Residential Tenancies Act sits in her portfolio. She has the power to direct reform. She has been written to directly and is aware of this issue.

The Hon. Colin Brooks MP - Minister for Consumer Affairs, Victoria. Consumer Affairs Victoria sits within his portfolio - they are the regulator responsible for administering and enforcing the minimum rental standards. They have the ability to develop measurable standards and we are asking them to do so.

Consumer Affairs Victoria - the body that administers the Residential Tenancies Act, develops the regulations, and advises on policy. The research is there. The evidence is there. The families are there. This is an opportunity for them to lead meaningful reform.

The Victorian Parliament - the legislators who have the ability to strengthen the Residential Tenancies Act and ensure that the standards written into it are backed by the measurements needed to make them real.

These are not bad people. I genuinely believe that most of the people in these roles care deeply about doing right by Victorians.

Caring is a wonderful start. This petition is asking for the next step -  action.

The evidence exists. The research exists. The families exist. And the opportunity to define these words and protect people with them is right here, right now.

What we are asking: We are calling on the Victorian Government to give the term “mould-free” a measurable legal definition in the Residential Tenancies Act - so that no family can ever again be told their home is mould-free without the science to prove it.

• Specifically we are asking for:
  A measurable definition of “mould-free” with prescribed testing and objective thresholds
• A legal definition of “remediation” that requires fixing the structural source, not just the surface
• Disclosure obligations triggered by any written tenant complaint about mould, moisture or air quality - not only formal repair notices
• Compensation rights that run from when documented complaints began, not only from when the hidden structural cause was formally identified
• Mandatory disclosure of building health assessment findings upon any subsequent sale or re-letting
• Independent inspection rights for tenants where a landlord’s own tradesperson has assessed and cleared a complaint

Malakai’s story: Malakai moved into his first home before he was even born. I was in the final weeks of my pregnancy when we moved into a rental property in Mentone, Victoria. From the moment we arrived, something felt wrong.

He was constantly unsettled. He would only calm down outdoors - the moment we came back inside, the distress would return. As a first time mum, I trusted that his level of discomfort and stress were perhaps normal. Possibly reflux, possibly food sensitivities but something in me said this wasn’t right.

My motherly instinct told me to keep being a voice, keep asking, keep going. Something told me it was environmental but I never thought for a moment it was mould.

He had breathing difficulties requiring multiple emergency room presentations. On one occasion after a common children’s medication was administered he became non-responsive and a medical code was called. At the time there was no clear explanation. His skin reacted only on areas exposed to the air. His sleep never improved. His reactions were unpredictable and difficult to understand.

I raised concerns in writing nearly every week with the property manager and rental agents. I submitted a formal complaint to the real estate agency directly. I went to VCAT and obtained multiple orders requiring repairs. I dealt with approximately nine different rental agents across the tenancy - meaning every escalation required starting over with someone new who had no knowledge of what came before.

I used every part of the system available to me. And I am grateful it existed. I just wish it had been able to do more.

After nearly two years of raising concerns, escalating formally, and fighting through every channel available to us, I commissioned an independent building sciences assessment from a qualified team including a chemist, microbiologist, and building sciences specialist.

What they found underneath our home explained everything.

The waste pipes from both the ensuite and bathroom had been completely disconnected - discharging wastewater directly under our floors for the entire tenancy, and likely for many months or years prior to us living there. The damage was extensive.

Two lakes of contaminated water sitting beneath our house while my baby slept above it.

The independent assessors confirmed there was no pipe connected to the bathtub at all. This is significant - because a plumber chosen by the landlord had previously attended the property to scope the bathtub at my request and reported no issues. We were present when that scope was conducted. If it was carried out as reported, the absence of any pipe connection would have been immediately and unmistakably apparent. We believe the landlord was aware of the true state of that property.

The air sampling found an extreme amount of Penicillium/Aspergillus Water Damage Taxa spores in Malakai’s bedroom - against zero in the outdoor air. Every single spore came from inside the building.

In the wall cavity directly beside his crib, the assessors found high levels of Stachybotrys - one of the most serious indoor mould species known. It does not grow on surfaces. It grows inside structures over years, sustained by ongoing water damage. It produces compounds that are known to affect immune function in developing infants. A surface sample taken from his crib returned active fungal contamination.

He had been sleeping in that environment every night since before he was born. The report was unambiguous - the house was reported uninhabitable and should be vacated immediately. We left the same day.

The property was subsequently listed for sale with as is where is type language in the listing - wording that signals no warranties are being given about the condition of the property. When I contacted the local council to raise that the property had been declared uninhabitable by an independent assessor, I was told that their hands were tied - that the hope was any incoming buyer would conduct their own due diligence and obtain a proper building report. The property sold. The new owners had not seen our report and had no idea what had been found there. We knocked on their door ourselves and shared everything with them.

At the final VCAT hearing, the member noted that she was deeply concerned by what she had seen and that the question was not whether compensation was warranted but how much. She did everything within her power. The law, as it stood, limited what was possible and that is exactly what this petition is asking to address.

Where Malakai is now: Malakai is recently four. This year he was diagnosed with MCAS (Mast Cell Activation Syndrome) and has presented with all the signs and symptoms consistent with CIRS (Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome( both conditions linked in medical literature to biotoxin and mycotoxin exposure in water-damaged buildings, and conditions that may affect him for the rest of his life.

His daily life looks very different to that of a typical child his age. He faces ongoing health challenges that affect what he can eat, how he feels, and how he is able to engage with the world around him. He needs significant support every day. Simple things that most four year olds take for granted remain out of reach for him during difficult periods.

Finding practitioners willing and able to help him has been a long and expensive journey - because these conditions are not formally recognised within Australia’s mainstream medical system, meaning there are currently no established treatment pathways or health standards to guide his care.

We are working with a wonderful team and we remain genuinely hopeful about his future. Progress is happening. It is just slow, and the path is harder than it needed to be.
He had no choice about where he lived. He had no choice about what he breathed. He began breathing that air before he was even born.

Since speaking publicly about our experience, several other families have reached out with remarkably similar stories. This tells me that what happened to us is not an isolated incident - it is a gap in the system that is affecting families across Victoria right now.

I came to this country and I chose it. I still choose it. I believe in it. I have hope for the people running it. I believe they have the capacity to do better when they understand what needs to change.

I used every process available to me. I did everything right. And I am not here to point fingers - I am here to help build something better. A standard that is real. A definition that means something. A law that protects the next family the way it was always supposed to protect mine.
With your signature, we can make that happen.

Please sign. Please share. Every signature tells the Victorian Government that a law without a definition, without a measurement, and without a binding process is not a law at all - it is a suggestion. 

And our children deserve better than a suggestion - For Malakai 

 

 *This is not anecdotal. The Victorian Building Authority’s State Building Surveyor has publicly stated that water damage routinely tops the list of defects in complaints to the VBA. A VBA-commissioned research study analysing 6,299 residential building disputes found that water ingress and moisture damage consistently tops the list of issues in complaints to the Building and Plumbing Commission, claims to the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority, and disputes to Domestic Building Dispute Resolution Victoria. A separate analysis by Cladding Safety Victoria found that of 359 buildings in their program, nearly 50 per cent had water ingress defects — and of those, nearly 80 per cent showed water and moisture related structural damage consistent with the presence of mould. Sources: Victorian Building Authority, “Examining moisture related disputes in Victorian residential buildings” (2024–25); VBA State Building Surveyor public statement, 2023; Cladding Safety Victoria non-cladding defects research, 2023.