RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 October 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:52): I rise to speak on the Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012 which, as the title indicates, seeks to make miscellaneous amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. Members will probably remember that there was significant reform in residential tenancy law—in particular, its operation and management—with the establishment of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to provide what was then proposed to be a regime that would provide for prompt, efficient, cheap, accessible and quick justice in the resolution of issues between landlords and tenants.

There have been some changes over the years, but I think in May and June of this year a consultation period opened where a number of submissions were received by the government in their review of this act. There will be no criticism from the opposition on the review of legislation. Obviously, after a reasonable period of time of 15 or 20 years, it is not unreasonable to review the effectiveness of legislation and whether any reform is necessary, and to do that a bit more comprehensively than simply a kneejerk reaction to individual events.

What does concern me—and this is not the first time that this has occurred—is that when these consultation periods occur, sometimes the submissions that are received are published on a website and sometimes they are never seen. This was legislation that was introduced fairly quickly after the consultation period in October this year and, not unreasonably, I suggest, the opposition sought to be provided with copies of the submissions.

We understand that that included the 'usual suspects' as you would expect in this type of review—that is, landlords and tenants, residents, professional property managers, private landlords and tenants, all people who you would normally expect would have some stories to tell, proposals to be considered and reforms that they would be seeking to have adopted. Sometimes it is from very poor experience. It is not often that these reviews attract submissions from people who are happy in their lot with a piece of legislation but, at least when you hear the unhappy stories, it can identify an area that needs to be reformed.

Since our request that the submissions from the consultation on this matter be provided, they have not been produced. I am not sure why that is the case. I cannot understand why this has to be so secret. The Hon. Stephen Wade in another place attended the briefing with me and, I think, other members on the day. I would not have thought that it would attract such a high level of secrecy.

What is important is that, when the parliament does consider these reviews, and this is reasonably comprehensive, we are able to quickly check off whether in fact reforms are in response to an individual request, because that can sometimes be easily identified. We may have overlooked any problem in that area and be happy to, in appropriate circumstances, say, 'Yes, that's a good idea,' and not waste time. This whole secrecy thing seems to be permeating the mindset of the government. No wonder we need an ICAC!

In any event, getting back to this bill, the large area of reform relates to penalties and the creation of expiable offences. I am never that comfortable with that personally, in the sense that, to me, expiable offences do not always produce prompt and cheap justice but, nevertheless, it is reasonable that penalties be reviewed. I do not have any further comment on those.

In respect of landlords, the new regime for them includes that, in the absence of an agreement about water payments and where the property is separately metered, tenants will be required to pay all water usage. That seems sensible and reasonable in the circumstances, and we have a new tiered water-charging system. Some members will remember that there used to be a standard payment and then an excess water payment; we now have a tiered system.

There will be provision for a pet bond to be introduced, so that where a tenant seeks to keep a pet on the property, landlords will be able to charge an additional week's rent in bond. We can see the logic of that. It just seems that it is typical of 'one size fits all' that it will probably not be very helpful to identify whether that is fair for a goldfish or a pet moose. In any event, we will no doubt hear from the Attorney-General as to—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: A bit like graduated sentencing and discounts. If it is as bad as that, then perhaps it would not be a good idea, but I know members on this side of the house would like to understand more clearly how that 'one size fits all' is to be approached and the basis for it. Also, landlords will be able to claim compensation for tenants for any loss caused by the abandonment of property by the tenant. I have personally been in this situation as a landlord of a small property at Oakbank, a little farm block that used to be part of my maternal grandparents' dairy farm. There were tenants in the cottage and when they vacated I was advised that they had left a python in the roof, chooks in the backyard and some of those funny fish with legs that eat meat—I can't think what they are called now.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Axolotls.

Ms CHAPMAN: Axolotls, that's it; the Attorney is being helpful for a change. There were axolotls floating around in a tank. I went to secure the property, as there was fairly short notice that the tenants were vacating this property, and found that a note had been left to say that the python had actually been picked up, which I was relieved to hear about, but I was left with the fish with legs, which I knew were meat-eating, and the chooks.

There was a phone call then received that indicated that the tenants wanted to come back and pick up the fish; they did not have room in the tank but they would be picking them up in the next 24 hours. So I gave the fish some mincemeat and hoped that that was not going to kill them, but it seemed to keep them alive. I then proceeded to catch the chooks and put them in the back of the car and tried to find a home for them, because they had been abandoned.

So, it is not just a question of goods that are left, but living things can be left and the landlord is then left with this vexed question of what on earth they do with them and how they can be humanely relocated to another home, or disposed of. It is difficult if one is put to the expense of advertising to try and find the owner to come and pick up their chooks, or whatever.

As it turned out, there was a happy ending to this story. I did find a new home for the chooks, although within a few days the tenant, who in fact did owe a bit of rent, contacted me to say that she wanted to pick up the chooks, that she had now changed her mind. She wanted Henny Penny and her associates to be collected and I had to retrieve them. I did not have to but I felt that it was important that she have a chance to be reunited with her chooks. So, with that arranged and the matter of the outstanding rent having been addressed, Henny Penny et al and family were exchanged. So, there are happy endings to some of these things, but it can be a great inconvenience and expense, and can be quite distressing. I would have been very disturbed, of course, had I had to climb into the roof and actually extract the python, but, anyway, I was relieved of that. So there are circumstances—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: More snakier moments!

Ms CHAPMAN: More than usual! So there are circumstances where this can be important. Under this reform, landlords, we think, will also find it easier to evict tenants who repeatedly fail to pay their rent on time. We will see whether that actually works. I hope it does. I know, having represented the opposition on matters relating to the South Australian Housing Trust, that this has been a very difficult area, and even Housing SA has had to manage some very difficult circumstances.

Considerable time can be spent, in seeking some relief, by the tribunal and by a reasonable landlord, in the matter of evicting non-paying tenants, and, I think, the reverse, that is, those who decline to pay rent on the basis that there has been a breach of some obligation of the landlord. These things are fairly tedious and tiresome to go through the tribunal, even though it is supposed to have been a streamlined, cheap option. Also, there is to be the adoption of the national model provisions for the regulation of residential tenancy databases, often referred to as the tenant blacklists.

For the tenants, they have a smorgasbord of reform. One of them is that the landlord and agents will only be permitted to enter the property between 8am and 8pm during a specified two-hour window, and not at all on Sundays or public holidays. That is probably not unreasonable. It would seem to be a bizarre situation where a landlord has to be entering a property to inspect at night-time or on holidays, but even if they were a small property owner, as a landlord, one would think that they could organise their arrangements so that they would not unfairly intrude into the privacy of the tenant.

Landlords will be responsible for the reasonable losses of the tenant flowing from a failure to repair, or to take reasonable steps to repair, after notification by the tenant. This is another area of concern probably—and I guess there would have been submissions on this issue—even the simplest things like failing to fix leaking taps, causing water damage, causing damage then to other personal property or furniture of the tenant, all because the landlord has failed to attend to the proper repair and maintenance of the property or fixture.

There will now be specified information that must be recorded by the landlord in relation to rental payments. We also have a clause which is to make provision for the landlord to consent to tenants making alterations or additions to the property. It is to be done in a manner where the landlord is not able to unreasonably withhold that consent. This is an area of concern, I would have to say, raised by a number of members of the opposition and I, too, am concerned as to how exactly that would operate. The extent of the renovations/alteration is one on which we will need some specificity from the Attorney. Tenancies that are not terminated before the end of a fixed term are proposed to be periodic tenancies after the end of a fixed term, that is, except for the tenancies of less than 90 days.

In respect of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, the changes there are to include that the tribunal be able to determine disputes without conducting a hearing based on the application and documentation provided by the parties. The tribunal will no longer be bound by evidentiary rules. I think they had a pretty lax regime before to be honest but in any event they will be able to conduct hearings with a minimum of formality and must act in good conscience and on the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal forms. I think that has been something that has been an observable practice of the tribunal the few times I have ever appeared in it.

The jurisdiction of the tribunal is proposed to be increased from $10,000 to $40,000; that is a logical step. Fees paid to the tribunal will not be recoverable with an award of costs or in order to pay compensation. I think that is a mistake. I always think that is a mistake with these tribunals trying to be cost recovery free jurisdictions. Nevertheless, that is what is being proposed.

Probably the most significant area of reform is the overall application of the act and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal being accessible for relief for people who are living in rooming houses and lifestyle villages. It is probably fair to say that other members of the house would have received from time to time complaints of people who are enjoying a right of access to a room or a space or a particular unit in a facility and yet are not covered by other legislation. The Retirement Villages Act and all the other different types of legislation that we now have cover different types of lifestyle living, but the lifestyle villages and rooming houses have largely fallen through the cracks and it is not unreasonable that they be absorbed into one or other piece of legislation to be dealing with that.

The Real Estate Institute has raised a number of issues in respect of this legislation and has provided some input. I think it is best they be teased out during the course of the committee. I expect that the government has heard from the Real Estate Institute at some stage during this consultation and they may well have some sensible answers in response to some of their concerns that would avert the need for any amendment.

Shelter SA were the first to write to me and possibly to others in the house. I had not heard from Shelter SA for some time, but they have a new CEO, and she was most helpful in her advice. They raised concerns about the effectiveness of a standard tenancy form being utilised if, as they say, 'a failure to comply with this section does not make the Residential Tenancies Agreement illegal, invalid or unenforceable'. So, the practical application of that is obvious a concern to them.

Not surprisingly, Shelter SA really see the bill as one which is perpetuating the power imbalance between landlords and tenants. They of course are a strong advocacy group for many of the most underprivileged people in the community. Perhaps, from their perspective, had they had a more open consultation on the bill and the proposed changes to the act, they would have been better served in the reform that is before us. Nevertheless, they were very critical of the consultation process or lack thereof.

Shelter SA have also raised concerns regarding the introduction of the pet bond, and the whole operation of the tenant blacklist database has probably not gone sufficiently far enough for them to be satisfied that tenants would be protected. Their biggest concern, from memory, was that once you are on these lists you cannot get off them, and they see this as a situation where people for whom they advocate are frequently and almost permanently excluded from the tenancy market because of being on the blacklist.

The Law Society have considered the question of reform and, again, presented some material. I am not sure as to whether they have actually seen the bill, but in any event, they take the view that the increase in jurisdiction with respect to the tribunal from $10,000 to $40,000 is too high. They have not identified what they do consider to be reasonable. The opposition will not be taking issue with that. It has been 17 years or so since we have reviewed this; it does not seem to be unreasonable on the face of it.

The Law Society also have concerns that appeals over the decision of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal would be made to the administrative and disciplinary division of the District Court, which would be costly for the parties involved. The appeals under the current Residential Tenancies Act are also to the District Court. Instead, the Law Society recommend that the appeal process be made from the tribunal to the Magistrates Court, where there is a lower level of appearance fees in that jurisdiction.

The areas of concern on which we seek some clarification are foreshadowed in this discussion, and that is that we do need to have some understanding of what happens at the termination of a lease where there has been a tenancy break or cessation of the standard tenancy agreement. Will this allow, at that point, for there to be an increase in the asking price under proposed clause 29? I think we need some clarification on that.

I recall asking, in the briefing, whether the standard rental agreement has been drafted yet. My understanding is that there had been historically one used by the Real Estate Institute by practice in more recent years, because it was more contemporary than the old one. Now, they are looking to have a standardised agreement. I am not in favour of 'one size fits all' for things, but nevertheless, if we are going to have one, I would have thought, at the very least, we could have had a draft presented to us for some consideration. So, we would be looking to provide the standard rental agreement as a disallowable instrument.

We would want the increase in rent at the break of tenancy if the property is offered to new parties to be allowable. We consider that allowing for a condition of a standard rental agreement to prohibit conversion of the property from a shared rental property to a rooming house to be important, to avoid tenants vacating a property without incurring the cost of a lease break by defaulting in rental payments, and to only require landlords to provide instructions to tenants about household appliances where reasonably practical.

We are open to some consideration of the Law Society's recommendation that the appeals go to the Magistrates Court. There may be other precedents of that process that are in place that are effective, in which case we would like to hear about it. If the government has considered the Law Society's proposal and dismissed it, then we would like to have some answers on that.

I think a number of other members would like to speak on the landlord and tenancy reform in this legislation so I will not dwell on that further, but I will raise some issues in committee. If there are areas that we need to tidy up to make this bill more effective and more applicable on a just basis in this, at times, rather fractious relationship between landlords and tenants then we will be looking for them. Hopefully, we will have some indication whether the government is prepared to accept them; if not, we will press ahead with those in another place.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:16): I just want to ask a question, or make an observation. I am not sure if I mentioned this to members previously, but I do not wish to close down reasonably flexible discussion during the committee stage of the bill. For members who have a particular contribution to make about particular aspects of the bill, my intention is not to be in any way restrictive about their making that contribution in the context of the committee stage. I just ask that, in the interests of being succinct or targeted about it, that we do not have a second reading contribution that is then regurgitated in the committee stage.

My respectful request is that people consider one or the other. However, I can assure people who elect to go for the committee stage that I will not be pulling some sort of procedural red card out of my hat and saying—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am in the hands of the house about that. I know that the member for Schubert wants to say something, but I was going to say—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Schubert actually has the call.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:18): I note what the minister said, and I just want to make some observations both as a landlord and a tenant. I am actually both, because I do rent out properties and also pay rent myself. It is always a difficult area, and it is good that we—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I tried to buy the place but my wife would not let me; that is the reason I rent. I rent a lovely place in Tanunda, but I will say that it is getting rather expensive.

There is always that conflict there between the renter and the landlord and it is good to occasionally reassess the situation, because I believe that every now and then we lose track of what is going on. We need to both encourage the landlord—because we need to have landlords; there needs to be a viable industry for them, otherwise we would not have a rental market—and to make sure that the tenants themselves are responsible, that they look after the property. After all, someone has to repair it and keep it in good condition, if not for them then for the next tenant.

So I do note the list here in the second reading speech. I think it spells out some very obvious things that I always assumed were law, particularly in relation to the water that the tenant uses being paid for by the tenants. I cannot see why that should ever be any different. Regarding pets in tenant houses, there are a lot of landlords who do not allow pets nowadays and I can understand that. It is quite reasonable that, if a landlord was to allow pets, they ask for and get the extra bond. In this instance, that is only an extra month's rate put down as a bond.

I was also very interested to read—and this has always vexed me—that it will be easier for landlords to evict tenants who repeatedly fail to pay their rent on time. I think it is difficult to understand why the minister should have to spell that out in a bill because that ought to be common sense. There is nothing worse than harassing people for money if they have not paid. This is why most people now have an agent go around and pick up the money. In the old days, it was just a direct transaction between the landlord and the tenant. Now, because of these hassles with payment, a lot of people, myself included, put it in the hands of an agent and hand away some of the money to an agent because it is too much hassle.

The entry of landlords to properties has always been in dispute. I think what the minister has put here in relation to a specified time between 8am and 8pm and not on weekends is reasonable enough. I always give notice and have always given notice about when the inspections would be. Without any further ado, I was certainly interested to read this bill. I will listen to the committee stage but will not contribute further.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:21): I respect the minister's intent. It has been his practice in other discussions about bills to allow members to make a contribution in general at the committee stage, but I wish to make some part of a second reading contribution to this bill. In doing so, from the very start, I declare my personal interest in that I am the owner of an investment property, which is in the Register of Interests. All MPs are required to submit—I think, in July or August or thereabouts—whatever properties they might have an interest in. While I certainly do not intend to go through the full briefing paper, as the shadow minister has very capably done in raising all the points of issue that the opposition might have, there are a couple more points in particular I want to take up.

The first one is the abandonment of property. I have a historical recollection, from when I was working in local government, of a property that the council was renting from the South Australian Housing Trust that I had initially lived in until I had built my own in that town. I made it available as part of an opportunity to employ somebody in the council who, I thought, needed a chance in life. This bloke had had a lot of struggles and had a young family. I had arranged a job opportunity for him and, unfortunately, he abused the privilege terribly.

I thought he was doing a reasonable job, but he just decided to leave the house and leave the district and he left the house in an absolutely disgraceful state. Out of shame for the fact that I had put my own neck out there to provide the home for him, I felt an obligation to clean it myself before anybody else saw it because it was that bad. So, my wife and I spent a couple of days up there making use of our time to clean it.

I know of other people. Indeed, a staff member who I have had working for me has told me of a property that they have owned that was left in an absolutely disgraceful state with furniture, clothes, food, everything left there. It is important to recognise that this is a mutual obligation issue. The tenant has a responsibility and the landlord has a responsibility. If the relationship is a strong one, everybody is happy.

I understand the intent of the bill from the minister. If everyone met those mutual obligation requirements, we would live in a much nicer world, you would not necessarily need legislation to fix these things and those of us who have investment properties would not have to employ property managers and pay 7.7 per cent of the rent or whatever it works out to be, depending on what your agreement says, for those people to be that first point of contact before they contact you about issues that might arise.

I was also particularly interested in the provision of the bill that a landlord's consent cannot be unreasonably withheld from a tenant who wishes to make an alteration or addition to the property. I can only assume that that talks about garden issues because it would not talk about an internal wall structure or the addition of a veranda, a shed or something like that. The minister nods his head in agreement with the fact that it is only of a minor nature, so I am pleased to have that level of clarification.

I was also interested in the sale notification. When I read this in the briefing paper, my immediate reaction was to think that I can understand that, when people make a decision to sell a property, they are also confined within the responsibility that they have under the lease agreement with the tenant to make that property available for that committed time. While, of course, they would like not to have any vacant period between the lease agreement finishing and a sale proceeding on the basis that they have found someone to buy it, it is important, as part of that mutual obligation requirement to inform the tenant and also that property manager, so that everyone who is involved in the transaction understands the time frames that are involved.

I was also interested in the rent review situation. While most people would go for a longer term of lease (be it 12 months or so, which I think in most cases is probably the maximum period), there are occasions where shorter terms are in place. Therefore, it is important that instead of a fixed 12-month period it might be confined to a lease period of three months, six months, nine months or 12 months, and the clock might be able to be reset at the completion of the first lease period.

Property managers have a very challenging job. My son is an electrician (I will declare that). The small firm that he works for does an enormous amount of work for property managers across metropolitan Adelaide. He has told me some crazy stories, where he has been called out to do electrical jobs. One tenant did not want to pay for a new light globe, so they called the property manager, who called the electrician, who came out to change the light globe. As a landlord, that is a disgraceful story when you consider the costs of a minimum callout charge.

His latest example of where mutual obligation has fallen down completely concerns a bloke who was renting a property and having trouble with a Clipsal safety switch. He managed to flick it back on a number of times and finally got sick of it after about a month. He rang the property manager, who rang my son, who had to drive 50 minutes to get to this property. He was five minutes away when he had a telephone call from the property manager to say that the bloke fixed it and did not need him anymore. As it turned out, they still had to pay for calling somebody out. Then, the even more grating frustration is that he got a call the next day to say it happened again and that they wanted him to go there.

That shows where tenants are just being completely irresponsible. I recognise that that is in the absolute minority, though. The absolute majority of people who rent properties do so through need and have respect for the property owner, and they take exceptional care of the property. In my own case, I have had a tenant for about five years, living by herself, operating a small business from the property, and she does a wonderful job. Even when we have had some problems with things she has been very calm, does not get upset and recognises that repair works will take place. She has a great attitude, which has always made me inclined to keep any property rent increases to an absolute minimum and, indeed, to invest in a new veranda that she wants too.

Good relationships exist, but it is important that we pass this bill, which allows for a recommitment and an improvement of the arrangements to give some security to both sides of the equation. There will be a variety of contributions and there will no doubt be some questions in the committee stage, but I and other members look forward to the swift passage of the bill.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:28): I just want to make a few comments about this, having been a landlord and suffered at the hands of various tenants. We have had properties, including shops, flats and houses and, trust me, I would much rather now put the money into an investment that I can enjoy myself, so my wife and I have bought a farming property. We might have to suffer some pain in having to work the place, but we can at least enjoy that pain at our own pace.

We had a house a number of years ago that we rented out to a delightful young lady who had all the right references. The day before, she phoned and said that she was sorry, she could not do it, that she had a job change, she was going interstate and could her cousin rent it. Well, that was fine. She seemed a trustworthy young lady. It turned out that the cousin was a bikie, and having patched up the shotgun holes in the walls, repaired some of the other damage, and pulled up the marijuana plants that kept coming up in the backyard, we decided that we did not want to be in the rental business for too much longer, so we went from residential tenancies to commercial.

While that was not as bad, the demands on the landlord were quite significant. We tried to be good landlords and did everything. It is one of those areas where you put a lot of money into the investment, and by the time you pay land tax and other outgoings there is not a lot left over. To see some extra protection for landlords coming in is excellent. I think there are probably some areas for improvement in this bill, according to those who know more about it than I, but it is important that we do protect landlords and, at the same time, protect tenants because I, and other members in this place, would have constituents come to them who are victims of unscrupulous landlords, and I have got one at the moment who is a single mother with two primary school children.

There are a number of issues with the house at Glenelg and although they are getting a relatively inexpensive rent compared with others in the area that does not give the landlord an excuse not to do any maintenance or repairs on the place. There are standards that should be agreed to. It has to be a two-way street and I think people just want a fair go.

The other issue, obviously, that I, as a veterinarian, am aware of is the health benefits of owning pets, and the vast majority of pets do not damage homes. In fact, people care for their pets and a lot of them treat them like children. Those who do allow pets to damage property need to be made aware of their responsibilities, not only as a pet owner but also as a tenant. I see in here that the pet bond will be introduced. I think that is a very good thing because it is an indisputable fact that pet ownership is good for your health, and it should not be bad for the wallet of the landlord.

There is a need to continually look at residential tenancies and the issues involved in that, such as water metering and power metering. I had a fellow come to see me the other day who has six flats. There is one main gas meter. Each flat has its own meter for gas to show their consumption. They are metered out to four different gas companies or retailers. He got a bill for the main meter for over $2,000 that had to be paid. The fact that the same company was also then charging the tenants for the gas through individual meters was something we had to sort out, but fortunately we did get it sorted out. There are issues around that.

I think there are a lot of issues involved in the rental business, whether it is commercial or whether it is residential, but I certainly encourage the government, and certainly I know the opposition is continually looking at the issues with this particular area in mind because there will always be people who want to rent.

There will always be people who want to invest and, provided the returns are there for the investors and there are acceptable conditions for rental, some people actually rent all their lives. I have always owned homes where I possibly could, but I rented when I was a student and we had some pretty good deals then from our landlords as they took pity on us as poor students.

So, there are lots of issues and I look forward to seeing a good outcome so that all the members in this place do not get continual complaints from tenants who are feeling they are hard done by, or from landlords who think they are being hard done by, without any commonsense recourse to solve problems and not having to go through a legal system that can be an absolute huge expense as well.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:33): I thank all the members who made a contribution. I just want to say a few brief things in overview about this because it may or may not be helpful as a way of quickly setting the scene for the committee stage, which I hope we can go into pretty well immediately.

The first thing is this bill has had a considerable gestation period. In fact, by my reckoning, well over a decade. When I became the relevant minister, I asked some of the excellent departmental advisers that I have, 'What is happening with residential tenancies?' I was told, 'We have been looking at that.' Then I said, 'Roughly how long have you been looking at it?', and they said, 'About a decade.' I said, 'Well, isn't it time we stopped thinking and started doing something?'

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You cannot really blame anybody. It is just that they are such deep thinkers in business and consumer affairs that they do not want to leave any little thing, to a comma or a full stop or an apostrophe. That is true, isn't it. They do not like being in a position where they have not covered everything to the nth degree. I said, '99.9 per cent is good enough for me because when I get it into the House of Assembly I know the members there generally do not mess around with legislation. But I can be confident that, if you spend enough time creating the Mona Lisa, it will come back from the Legislative Council with an eye patch and a blackened tooth. So don't go to that 100 per cent. Don't take it that far, okay?' Anyway, they felt empowered by that, I think, and so we actually started to write down exactly what the thinking was, and that was put out in a discussion paper.

The people who were mentioned (the REI, Shelter, the Law Society and everyone else), at some point during the last decade all of them have had their fingers in this pie somewhere along the place; and they certainly had an opportunity to have a look at the discussion paper that we had out there and they certainly had an opportunity to respond to it, and some of them did respond and some of them did not.

Can I say this, though: in a spirit of getting things done—which is where the Consumer and Business Services people are, because they are now out of the 'think tank', they are into the 'do tank'; they are just doing stuff and this is an example of it—the theme of this is Yin and Yang. The idea is—

Ms Chapman: Give each dog a bone.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Give each dog a bone, indeed. I was going to move on actually to feng shui because I thought that went in with—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is better than Yin and Yang.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay. Unlike the member for Bragg, I am not an expert on feng shui, but as I understand it the idea is that you have balance and harmony and you have a sense when you are in a place that everything is in equilibrium. That is the idea here. All I would say to the members as we go into the committee stage of the bill is to say, 'Look, please, with that sort of feng shui analogy in your mind, or maybe the scales of justice with the blindfold on, just remember that if you take something out of one side you are going to tip the scale.'

If your concern is that the scale is already not in balance, then, fair enough, and we should and must have that conversation in the committee stage. But just bear in mind that if we take too much out of the landlords' side we are going to swing the balance in favour of tenants in a direction that we have not intended to do in this bill. Conversely, if we pull stuff too much out of what is in there for tenants, we will swing it too far in favour of landlords, which is also what we have not tried to do.

I confess that the idea from the start was to give both landlords and tenants things which have been niggling, annoying things for both of them, rectify them in both sides so they all feel happier, so that they all sort of move together into that sunlit upland where tenants and landlords respect and like each other. That is where we are trying to wind up. That is the object.

I will touch on a couple of very brief things that were mentioned by the member for Bragg. With respect to the question of District Court versus Magistrates Court, the idea, I guess, is that we do not particularly think there will be a lot of these appeals. Traditionally, that is where they have gone, and it is my hope and expectation that in the not too distant future most of this work will be done in a civil and admin tribunal in any event. To be perfectly frank with the member for Bragg, this is the logical place to leave that function for the time being, but I do not see it staying there forever.

Ms Chapman: Where is it going?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: A civil and admin tribunal, which is something we need and sooner or later we must have.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, a District Court is actually a very busy trial court, and most of our civil and criminal matters are dealt with there, not to mention the ERD Court, but, anyway. Cost free is an interesting debate, and I will be interested in what the member for Bragg has to say about that. I must confess that, in my experience, there are problems with totally cost-free jurisdictions, just as there are problems with jurisdictions which basically have a basic standing rule that costs follow the event.

In my personal practical experience, one of the most effective rules I found was in the Industrial Commission where it was a cost-free jurisdiction unless there was a determination by the Presiding Member of the commission that a party to the proceedings had manifestly failed to act in any reasonable way in their conduct of proceedings. Now, it might or might not be that we can have a conversation about that; I am more than happy to do so.

In terms of the standard form business, can I just say that we have been working on the bill and we would intend to consult on the standard form. You might note from clause 2 (it is very early on) that the bill does not come into operation until a date fixed by proclamation. There is plenty of opportunity between now and then for the regulations to be worked upon. I am perfectly happy to do that on the basis that the member for Bragg and I sit down with some sandwiches, the REI version and officers of the department so that we can nut it out, and everyone will be happy with that. There is no issue about that.

There is a certain predictable choreography about the member for Bragg's contributions and mine in these debates so, in order to be consistent, I had better say what I always say, which is that it is a shame that we do not have any amendments in front of us in relation to this matter in the lower house, if there are going to be amendments. If there are not going to be amendments, that is fine, but we are actually part of the parliament too. I think every member of this house should consider us to be diminished by the fact that amendments are not debated in this chamber but are dealt with in another place where, admittedly, anything is possible and frequently does happen. However, it would be nice for us to all be engaged with the process and be given the opportunity in this place of debating those things.

I had to put that on the record again, just as the honourable member for Bragg makes outrageous assertions about my lack of consultation and things like that. That is part of the standard choreography in here. I think both of us would be disappointed if we did not say our things, although we could agree perhaps that if you do not say yours I will not say mine. Anyway, we want to go into committee.

Bill read a second time.