Housing Improvement Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 September 2015.)

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (11:19): I rise to speak on the Housing Improvement Bill 2015 and indicate to the house that I will be lead speaker. The Housing Improvement Bill 2015 will repeal the Housing Improvement Act 1940. Following the Depression of the 1930s, South Australia had high demand and poor standards of housing. Due to these inconsistencies in supply, South Australia implemented the Housing Improvement Act 1940 in an aim to ensure safe and appropriate housing standards in South Australia. This act related to housing in metropolitan Adelaide.

A government review of the act has found that provisions needed to enforce minimum safety standards and ensure owners carry out essential maintenance are not effective. Subsequently, some occupants continue to be at risk of being exposed to significant safety issues, health hazards and/or unfair rent in substandard homes. A discussion paper was released in 2010 about changing the legislation.

In 2012, the Housing Improvement Bill consultation received 16 written submissions from groups including: the Landlords' Association (SA) Incorporated; the Housing Industry Association; the Local Government Association; the Metropolitan Fire Service; Mission Australia; Mr Steven Marshall MP; the South Australian Council of Social Services; Shelter SA; the Tenants' Information and Advocacy Service; the Barossa Council; the Law Society of South Australia; the Law Society of South Australia's Administrative Law Committee; Youth Affairs Council of South Australia; and one that had their name removed.

I am not sure why it has taken six years from the original discussion paper in 2010 for this paper to come to parliament as a bill. Also, given that the 16 submissions were received in 2012—some four years ago—it is difficult to tell whether all of their feedback and suggestions were adhered to, as the section numbers referred to relate to previous copies of the bill, and therefore do not coincide. However, I have done my best to go through all of their suggestions and make sure that any that I believe were missed have been included in my amendments, which were filed in December, regarding this bill.

In particular, it appears that some of the suggestions from both the Landlords' Association and the Law Society of South Australia were not included in the government's final draft. I am told the government, subsequent to their initial feedback in 2012, held a roundtable with nine stakeholders, including: the Real Estate Institute of South Australia Incorporated; the Landlords' Association (SA) Incorporated; Shelter SA; Community Housing Council of South Australia; Junction housing; Anglicare's Tenants Information and Advocacy Service; the South Australian Council of Social Service; the Local Government Association; and the Outback Communities Authority.

Whilst the Liberal Party supports this bill in general, there are some areas that we note and stress can be improved on or are unnecessarily included. In general, these relate to the following main areas: (1) that the bill should only relate to residential properties that are tenanted or intended to be tenanted. Given that unsuitable and unsafe housing predominantly affects lower-income households, students and new migrants that are on rental housing, why include owner-occupied homes?

Given that, in my briefing with the ministerial and departmental staff, I was assured that this had never been applied to an owner-occupier, why include it in the bill? Surely, in South Australia, whilst we have a duty of care as a landlord, we should also be empowered to take personal responsibility for our own living conditions. Also, in a multicultural community such as South Australia, different people have different backgrounds and interpretations of what is suitable, and this should be taken into account.

As a Liberal, I believe in the freedom to live how you wish in your house, as long as there is no harm to others. I believe in less red tape, less laws, and less bureaucracy controlling and restricting people's lives. Many people start out buying their first homes and renovating them as they can afford to, as I have done, and I am sure have lived in conditions that would be in contravention of this act. This would most certainly impact on people purchasing homes. What is the point of fining someone or taking them to court when the reason they are living the way they are is often due to a lack of money and/or time to get things fixed, whilst working full-time to pay off their mortgage? This impacts unfairly on disadvantaged members of our community.

Shortly after buying my first home, I started major renovations. I rented elsewhere for as long as I could afford to, but then had to move back in to continue the work. When you account for rent plus paying off a mortgage plus the cost of renovations, it is clearly not possible to stay in a rental property for that long.

I lived in a home that would be in contravention of many of the regulations that are listed in the act. There was no oven or cooktop; we used a barbecue. There was no food storage cupboard in reasonable proximity to the kitchen; we had a fridge in the carport. Regarding the provision of sufficient power points, we had two extension cords from the front power box, and we had no external lights or lockable screen doors. Our house was not lockable for a short while as we waited for our cafe doors to arrive that opened into our backyard. There was no running water; we filled a bucket from the outside tap to flush the toilet.

We also had a room without windows, which is also in contravention, but it was intended because this could be an area for shiftworkers to sleep with total blackout. I see this is illegal; however, I believe you should be able to build your house as you see fit if you are the owner/occupier. Whilst I will not be rushing to do this again, it should be my choice and not the choice of the government how I renovate my own home and how I choose to live in that home.

My second major issue is in relation to the maximum penalty currently available under the existing act, which is $100. This is outdated and does not reflect the current economy or the severity of the offence. The new Housing Improvement Bill 2015 will increase this maximum penalty to $20,000, which is a severe increase from the $100. I believe this is excessive, and the penalty does not fit the crime. My amendments reflect proposed penalties to be reduced by 50 per cent, which is still huge—a $10,000 fine—but a more suitable charge for the breach of the provisions.

I would also question where the money goes. Where will all these fines go? Will this money be used to help pay for safety improvements for homes of people who cannot afford it? Will it be used to build more affordable homes, or will this be used to prop up an inefficient government that fails to meet its budget year on year. Excessive penalties was also raised in 2012 by the Landlords' Association.

My third point is that SACAT should provide all decisions in writing. The reason for this is to encourage transparency and openness from the tribunal in line with other judicial bodies. Four: reasonable attempts should be made to serve all relevant parties, not just one of the owners. Five: joint liability should not apply if there is reasonable proof that the person was not aware of the situation. Again, in a situation of a divorce or where property is held in trust, not all parties might realise what has been happening and, therefore, should not be held to account unless there is proof that they had been notified and were aware.

My sixth point is that the bill refers to who a qualified person is under the act. However, what is not made clear are the requirements of that person. Under the proposed act, such a person can enter my premises using reasonable force. In modern South Australia is such force appropriate or another attempt at red tape by a Labor government leading to breaking locks, doors or windows? The question arises: what if this leads to injury by another party? In addition, is the bailiff referred to in section 23 to be armed with any weapon of any kind?

It also bothers me that in this bill where there might be risk of your ceiling falling in on you, which is dangerous, somebody can actually break into your house with reasonable force, yet when a child such as Chloe Valentine is left in danger of negligence, you have to actually notify the parent that you are coming around and give them notice. So, it seems a bit inconsistent that on the one hand we are more worried about a ceiling than we are worried about children who are continually left in danger.

Ms Redmond: That's just this government's priorities.

Ms SANDERSON: Yes, it just shows the priorities of this government. Whilst the Housing Improvement Bill 2015 brings existing legislation into the 21^st century, the old bill still actually refers to pounds as our currency. It has taken 14 years of a Labor government to get around to this, so I think that given the time it has taken they should be open to amending this, in my opinion, to make this a superior piece of legislation.

I note that legislative authority and power to issue orders will be transferred from the South Australian Housing Trust in conjunction with local government to the minister. This is a very significant change in the bill, and I question whether the ministerial housing orders will now have longer processing times than under current arrangements.

I also question what the impact will be of removing the local government and the South Australian Housing Trust from the decision process, and have these issues been considered and what were the outcomes? Now that it is not only the metropolitan area included in this bill but the whole state, I particularly see problems with how the minister would be best placed to make these decisions—surely it would be the Housing Trust and the local government that have more people on the ground and that have a lot more knowledge of their local area and the houses that are within those areas.

At present under the Housing Improvement Act of 1940 reports need only be furnished to the minister in regard to capital expenditure by resolution of either houses of parliament or, if required, by the minister under any other act. The minister's role transforms from one of receiving the information in updates to deciding and acting upon information received by authorised persons with the minister's delegated authority. We have seen over this term of Labor government how many times ministers making decisions can end up in very controversial outcomes; so, I question whether that is really the right person to be making these decisions.

In addition, the minister has the power to do anything necessary, expedient or incidental to (a) performing the functions of the minister under this act, (b) administering the act, or (c) furthering the objects of the act. So, my question would be: what additional powers, if any, would the minister require outside what has already been prescribed in this act?

To ensure that occupants have access to correct information, any authorised officer must carry an identity card when performing their duties, which I agree with. Also, under the act they may remove an article that may constitute evidence of the commission of an offence against the act; so, we need to ensure that the evidence or property removed is in relation to the Housing Improvement Bill and not regarding any other legislation.

Division 3 talks about the rent control notices, and the previous act (the Housing Improvement Act 1940) limits the application of rental control of substandard houses to the metropolitan area and areas the Governor declares by proclamation. These are all listed in the Gazette, so it is very time consuming to find all these areas because they are not in one place. As I have already mentioned, I believe that councils, the local government and the Housing Trust that have widespread knowledge and contacts throughout the regions in particular and the metropolitan area would be best placed to be making these decisions and giving feedback, rather than the minister.

The new bill also allows for greater transparency and accountability under the act. Members of the public can access a register, which includes information regarding properties that have or have had an order placed on them, or maximum rent where a fixed rate applies. However, the minister has discretion to omit information from the register. A member of the public may pay a fixed fee to access any part of that register.

It is unclear whether members of the public can request their own information to also be removed from that register. For example, could a victim of domestic violence living in a rent-controlled property request that their address be suppressed and would this information be available under FOI?

One of my main concerns with this register is that, whilst I think it is a fantastic idea (because going through the Gazette is incredibly tedious and time consuming), is the government able to actually deliver a register with its record on IT and software projects, such as Oracle and EPAS, which have all blown out in both time and cost? I question whether it already has the costings and whether it will announce those to the house and in what time frame this would be delivered.

There are also other projects, such as the DCSI Concession Scheme from which the $7 million CASSIS program was dropped, and a further $2.2 million for the COLIN (Cost of Living Information) system has been implemented. So, we certainly need a register, but I am hoping that it will not cost $9.2 million, as in the case of the DCSI project that is currently underway.

Although we support this bill in principle, there are certainly changes that must be made as outlined, and I encourage the government to consider our recommendations.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (11:34): I am very proud to stand here to speak in support of this Housing Improvement Bill as it is a bill which will make a real difference to the wellbeing of individuals and families and communities right across South Australia. This bill will ensure that existing rental houses meet minimum standards to ensure that safe and suitable accommodation is provided to community members and to ensure that community members and their families who are renting are treated with the dignity and the respect that they deserve. There are many people in rental accommodation in our southern community in my electorate of Reynell, people who look after and treasure the houses they rent, and indeed transform them into much-loved homes for themselves and their families.

Sadly, those most impacted by landlords who do not adequately and promptly attend to maintenance issues are often families and households who most need affordable housing. They are sometimes people who have little choice but to accept accommodation of an undesirable standard and a maintenance schedule that creates an unsafe environment. The measure in this bill which creates a minimum standard for maintenance will ensure that this lack of real choice is addressed.

The ability to fix rent by regulation is also an important measure in this bill. It will ensure that excessive rent is not charged for substandard housing—excessive rent which often creates stress for renters and increases the possibility of risk of homelessness. This measure is also necessary in order to be able to direct an owner to repair items which pose unacceptable health or safety risks to an occupant. These changes are relevant in all areas of South Australia and, as I said, including in my own electorate of Reynell, with a considerable concentration of ageing homes in the rental market.

This bill will also repeal obsolete legislation whilst continuing to provide essential support to ensure that the quality of affordable housing is maintained to a habitable standard. Those exposed to poor quality accommodation are often highly vulnerable and have limited alternative housing options. It is essential that we do what we can to keep our most vulnerable community members, and indeed all renters, safe and suitably housed. This bill goes a long way towards this and I commend it to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:36): The Housing Improvement Bill 2015 is not what it seems and I want to reflect on a couple of matters that I think are important for us to appreciate. We have a Housing Improvement Act; it has been around for more than 70 years. It currently makes provision for the protection of people who are living in substandard houses. How does it do that? It requires certain upgrades and can make provision for demolition, it makes provision for cheaper rental if a dwelling is of lower standard than is available, it makes provision of public notice through the Gazette of what properties are the subject of a housing improvement assessment order, and it does all the things the member for Reynell said are important to ensure that we provide protection for tenants in the accommodation that they have.

What this bill does under the guise of upgrading, under the guise of contemporising to the modern world, in fact, is to deal with an employment problem that the government has. The government has hundreds of people in the South Australian Housing Trust and Housing SA, several hundred of whom they have already transferred to Renewal SA (which is the agency name for the urban renewal authority) to sell off housing stock to the NGOs and to the private sector for housing development, and what is it left with? It is left with a whole lot of people in a department who are going to have nothing to do.

So what does it do? It takes away, under this bill, the proposed scrutiny and measures with which we look at and ensure that tenancies are spaces which are safe for tenants and the like, which is the objective of the act—in fact, the principle act is being repealed. It takes them away from local government and away from the South Australian Housing Trust and gives them to the minister, who apparently is going to keep a register, and these people, the authorised officers, are going to have a job to do.

The authorised officers under this bill are to have the power to enter (as has been pointed out by the member for Adelaide and our shadow minister in this area), to inspect premises, etc. and do all the things that currently, to a large degree, local government representatives do, to issue the notices, take photographs, and put the process through. It is going to have some extra powers. As usual, when the government comes along with authorised officers, they want to have extra powers particularly in protection against anyone who dares to suggest to the authorised officer that they might be in breach of the powers. They are not allowed to hinder or obstruct an authorised officer, etc., and there are massive penalties if they do so.

Secondly, the ground of self-incrimination cannot be used as an excuse for failure to furnish information required under the act. So, as usual, we go through this exercise where we transfer, in this case a regulatory role, from local government agents, about whom there has not been any identified criticism other than a couple of lines in the second reading speech of the minister, who suggested that there was substandard maintenance of properties by landlords, apparently, according to this. It suggests in the opening line that one of the reasons we are getting this is because the review identified, or it was characterised, they say, by poor building conditions through lack of essential maintenance or defective work carried out by the owners.

If that was the case, why were they not being dealt with? That should have been the question that was asked. However, in any event, under the guise of that the authorised officers are going to have new and expanded powers. They are going to be employed by the government. They are going to give a job to the people who will not have a job any more—because they are sitting in there in their thousands in Housing SA, those who currently have a role, many of them to manage housing stock owned effectively by the government via the South Australian Housing Trust—and they are going to get a new job. That is what we are talking about here: more powers to state employees who are going to be without a job when the government has flogged off all the assets. That is the reality of what is actually happening here.

I ask members to listen carefully to the presentation of amendments which are going to be proposed by the member for Adelaide, our spokesperson on social housing matters, to understand that we do not want to inadvertently capture the people who are living in less than optimal standard housing. Many of us are not in the position of living in those circumstances but let me give you an example of where people are frequently residing, even temporarily, in what we might describe as less than optimal or substandard housing.

It is not just the people who are referred to here in the suburbs of Adelaide but the people who live in regional South Australia who are living in accommodation on farms, on council land, on other properties and in empty houses in towns. They have a few cobwebs in them, the plumbing might be a bit rusty, the electricity may be safe where it is administered or distributed to, but there may not be much of it, it may have poor amenities in furnishings and it may not have all the gadgets that go with what we expect living in comfortable suburban areas in metropolitan Adelaide.

However, these homes are providing accommodation to people who come here as refugees and who come here to do work for us in regional parts of South Australia. These people want to find accommodation in towns dotted around South Australia's country regions and to be provided with low-cost, affordable accommodation in this state for both individuals and families.

I say to the government that it might want to spend its whole time talking in its presentation about keeping people safe in the suburbs, but let me say that there is a lot of accommodation outside of metropolitan Adelaide: sure, it gets run down, it is often unoccupied for long periods of time, it is certainly not fashionable, it does not have the updates that a lot of other properties have, but it is providing safe, secure and affordable accommodation to many people in this state who are financially vulnerable, if not impecunious.

To introduce a regime of fines of tens of thousands of dollars—which currently are in hundreds of dollars—as some kind of penalty that is going to be imposed to make these bad landlords do the right thing, to upgrade these properties, I think is a farce. The reason is because this money is coming into the government. That is the first thing. This is a cash grab by the government to massively increase property fines where there is a failure on behalf of a landlord, for example, to demolish or upgrade.

It may be too expensive to demolish. The cost of disposal of building infrastructure is massive. Just look at the recent Pinery fire and the Lush family, who had to go through an expense of something like $30,000 to dispose of the asset of a burnt out shell of a house. Unless they can crush it down to less than the size of a fist, I understand, none of it can be buried. We are talking about bricks and mortar. We are talking about carbon-based waste which is prohibited from being put into landfill.

Firstly, there is the question of: how do you dispose of that, and the cost of doing that. Sometimes that is beyond the capacity of a person to do: they do not have the money to bulldoze or start again, they do not have the money for a massive upgrade, especially if there is a heritage listing on the property which may require an upgrade of that property, or it may not be able to be retrofitted to provide the services that are expected in this day and age.

So, do not come (as a government) into this parliament and start waving some great big financial stick against landlords who currently have a regime of obligation under laws that are to be enforced by this government—and if they are failing, it is this government's fault—and suggest that this is going to be some panacea of a provision of improved standard of housing for lower income renters. That is rubbish. This is a cash grab and it is going to be in the tens of thousands of dollars, where offences are committed, purportedly, by these people.

If the government was really serious about ensuring that we have safe and affordable accommodation for those in our community who are less well off, then it should start thinking about the land tax on some of these properties, it should start thinking about the cost of subsidy on rental for these properties. I have spoken a number of times to people who own a dwelling in metropolitan Adelaide (in areas that I look after) and they say to me, 'Look, I am very concerned. The government has put up the emergency services levy and the land tax on this property. I currently have tenants in there who are paying $80 a week, and they can't afford any more. I haven't upgraded the property, but it's safe. It doesn't have all of the widgets and gadgets that you would expect in an apartment in Unley, but it is safe and it is providing affordable accommodation for my 65 year old pensioner tenant. He's happy there. If I put the rent up he's not going to be able to afford to stay there, but I have to put the rent up because land taxes are going up and the government is now whacking me with an ESL, etc.'

If the government was serious about dealing with low cost accommodation it would meet with these people who own these low cost properties, identify what areas of capital input may be needed to upgrade, or demolish and start again, and/or work with them to make sure that they are not in a situation where they are forced to sell off or make improvements that then make it unattainable for the very people this government claims it is supporting. That is what the government should be doing, but it is not. It is bringing in a bill for us to consider and support that is going to affect the people who live in these homes themselves, who are not seeking to make any financial gain from anyone else but who choose to live in accommodation that they may own and occupy. It is seeking to punish, through an oppressive fine regime, those very people, who are then likely to sell up. A developer will come in and we will end up with blocks of apartments, which will make it unattainable for those people. That is the consequence of this type of situation.

If the government wants to be honest and say, 'Look, we have put a couple of hundred of our people over into Renewal SA to brush up some housing and to flog it off, but we have all these people sitting over here in our department who are not going to have much to do,' it should be honest about what they are going to do with these people and convert them into authorised officers and send them out to do a job which, frankly, is already being done well by other parties.

Finally, in relation to the SACAT transfer, we moved Residential Tenancies Tribunal work to SACAT in the first tranche of the reform under the SACAT Bill, along with the Guardianship Board. Where was this issue? This review was done years ago. Why was the question of housing improvement management as such, in its assessment and orders being issued, etc. and the appeal against those, not referred over to SACAT for the commencement in July last year with the Residential Tenancies Tribunal? Why? Because this government could not run a picnic.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (11:50): I thought that I would make a few brief remarks on the Housing Improvement Bill 2015, partly because I actually have some history with this piece of legislation from my previous role working in the cabinet office in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. It was back in 2009, which feels a long time ago for me—probably about a fifth of my life ago. It was 2009 when Murray Hutchinson and Linley May—I checked right back from my old records—came to see me in my role as a policy officer in the cabinet office back then, when I was looking after the housing portfolio. I believe that minister Rankine was the minister responsible at the time.

This is when the Housing Improvement Bill was first considered for review. It has taken seven long years to come into this place, so clearly it is not a pressing priority for the government in any shape or form, but here it is now. I can probably sympathise with the government that it is not a pressing priority, because I am not sure that this is a particularly significant problem out in the community. It is certainly not a problem that cannot be dealt with, as the deputy leader said, by existing policy regimes, either through local government, which has an environmental health role in enforcing the safety of premises and ensuring that houses are up to scratch for people to live in, or through what was the Residential Tenancies Tribunal and has obviously now been subsumed into SACAT. Both those jurisdictions could, I believe, adequately deal with what is before us today through the Housing improvement Bill.

The bill, as the member for Adelaide clearly set out in her lead speech on this matter, harks way back to 1940—over 70 years ago—when it was first brought into law in South Australia when the building act was reviewed in the late 1930s. It was felt that in that period there was a considerable amount of slum accommodation in the inner parts of metropolitan Adelaide and there needed to be a legislative instrument to try to bring that up to a better standard. It was felt, as part of the building act review committee, that the building act did not quite cut it in terms of providing the legislative remedy that was required, so the Housing Improvement Act of 1940 was passed by the Parliament of South Australia. Seventy-six years later, we are presented with the updated version.

As the member for Adelaide said, while we support the bill going forward in principle, there are a couple of concerns about it, particularly the size of the fines. As both the member for Adelaide and the deputy leader quite clearly articulated, we have significant concerns that this bill could be used as a revenue raising activity, as opposed to actually trying to ensure that rental accommodation is kept up to a decent standard. When you look at the fines that are part of this proposed legislation, it is a significant concern. Are we taking a big stick approach and creating a legislative regime which is not actually needed and is imbued with very significant fines throughout for breaches of the law?

I really only wanted to put my comments on record because I have had a history—it feels like a long history—with this bill from when it first came across my desk back in the State Administration Centre in 2009. It is interesting to be in a different role when the bill comes into parliament in 2016. As someone who believes in a minimalist, light touch of government and bureaucracy, it feels to me that this bill is over the top. There were existing legislative regimes in place—as I said, SACAT and local government—which could deal with the things that are before the house in this proposed legislation.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:56): I pay due respect to the member for Bright and the significant amount of his life that he has spent in relation to this legislation in a former life. Be that as it may, he is always very insightful, especially in the work that he has done in the past, and he is doing very good work in the parliament. We are here today in regard to the Housing Improvement Bill. It is quite interesting. This is a bill for:

An Act to provide for measures to address housing that is unsafe or unsuitable for human habitation; to control the rent of unsafe or unsuitable housing; to amend the Residential Parks Act 2007 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1995; to repeal the Housing Improvement Act 1940; and for other purposes.

We are certainly long overdue for the Housing Improvement Act to be upgraded and improved. However, one thing that does concern me—and I will certainly be interested in the minister's response down the track—is that, from my reading of it, this looks like it applies to every habitation in the state. I know there is a lot of talk about rental accommodation, but there are many and varied ways in which people want to live their lives, and we have freedom of choice. If people want to live in a tent by the river, or a humpy—some sort of primitive man-made construction—that is their choice. Obviously, not many people do that, but some feel that that is how they want to live, so we should let them be.

In other cases, people may be living in fairly rudimentary accommodation while they wait until they secure enough of their own funding to build better accommodation. That is certainly something that comes to the fore in opening up this great state, especially in the agriculture realm. Even only one generation back, I can recall many families who basically lived in the end of a shed. Yes, it was done up and most of them were lined accommodation—houses, for want of a better word—but they were essentially living in the end of a shed.

Many of these houses, sheds—whatever you like to call them—still exist today. Not a lot of them are lived in, from my knowledge, but that is only one generation back from me. People were living in these things in the 1950s, 1960s and, I would suggest, even into the early 1970s, until they found time, once they had cleared their properties and managed to do enough to get some reasonable accommodation.

As I said before, housing and accommodation is all in the eye of the beholder. It would not matter which suburb you went to, whether it was Burnside, Port Adelaide, Clarence Gardens, Windsor Gardens, or places throughout the country such as Mount Gambier, Murray Bridge in my electorate, Port Augusta, Port Lincoln—all around the state. There are many varied styles of accommodation, and then you get to Coober Pedy where they have that unique underground accommodation.

Ms Redmond: Dugouts.

Mr PEDERICK: Dugouts, as the member for Heysen suggests, because of the climate. So, there are many and varied means of accommodation. In fact, we used to use camp accommodation back in the days when I worked in the Cooper gas fields. There are many versions of that—the old huts or the ATCO huts. We have Australian Portable Camps right on the edge of my electorate that builds mining camps that are used right across this nation, and they do a fantastic job. Some people choose to live in accommodation like that. Why do we need to have big brother dictating what the minimum housing standard is? I know I am posing some broad questions here, but is there going to be an—

Ms Redmond interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. Is there going to be an easy answer to this or is the government trying to fix the severe unemployment problem that we have in this state by hiring all these authorised officers to inspect every place of habitat in this state? I wonder because there are so many styles of accommodation and even if people live in a relatively modern home. A lot of homes were built during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. In the farming areas, a lot of the brick homes in my area were built by the Trotta family, a great Italian family. They built many homes in my electorate, fantastic double brick houses, and I believe pretty well all of them are still being lived in today because they have been well built and they do a great job.

They were replacing some of these styles of accommodation I talked about before where people were living in the end of sheds and that kind of thing. What worries me as far as the construction of housing is concerned is that there does not seem to be any longevity built into housing construction these days in some of the ways they are constructed. My farmhouse at Coomandook is 80 years old. It is a fantastic house and it should go for another 160-plus years.

I shudder when I look at how we seem to have backtracked—and I am sure some builders will have a crack at me but that is fine—in the way that building styles have changed because of the cost of housing. We have gone from double brick to brick veneer and now we have blue board which I think seems like glorified cardboard. It worries me when I speak to some people in the industry who suggest that a lot of the modern homes being built today may only be there for 30 to 50 years. That is a pretty short life span for a house, in my mind.

It is very subjective in regard to how you measure the suitability of how someone lives. Yes, in rented premises especially, you expect that they comply and be tidy and that sort of thing and that can be relative as well. I am not an extreme hoarder personally but I tend to hoard a few things. Thankfully I have a good wife who cleans out the cupboard occasionally, and I am sure there some things that I do not miss that I should miss that have disappeared from the house.

The Hon. S.W. Key: What are we talking about?

Mr PEDERICK: You just have to listen. I am just talking about how it is all subjective on the quality of how people live their lives.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I am just wondering if the member for Hammond needs protection.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, ma'am, and I do appreciate your protection.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! On 131. Let's not start off the year badly.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, ma'am. They are out of control on the other side. As I started in my contribution, I am really concerned as to how it will affect private dwellings. Not just that, how will the government, if there is a distinction (and I need to be convinced that there is a distinction), know whether houses are rented or are owner occupied, and that kind of thing? Another issue we have, especially in the country, is that, as country populations have diminished (and in my local area it has probably diminished by 50 per cent in my lifetime, which is sad) it leaves the opportunity for housing to be rented out, and sometimes the houses are just walked away from, but they may be picked up later for very low rent and with minimal work done.

It worries me what enforcement may be put in place if too high a standard is put up, especially where people are only getting very minimal rent. When I say 'minimal rent' I am talking in the realm of between $80 and $120 a week, and there would be quite a few properties right across the state in rural areas, and especially on farms, that are rented out for that amount. So, I will be very interested in the response from the minister.

A range of orders can be placed with this bill. There are housing assessment orders, and I guess once you get an assessment order you are probably likely to get a housing improvement order, unless you are really unlucky and you get a housing demolition order. Whatever happens with these orders, there will be a cost. As we heard earlier, fines have increased significantly from around $100 in the 1940 act. It is certainly noted in the bill that actions will be taken by the minister if orders are not complied with, and also recovery of costs.

It was interesting to note in the minister's second reading speech the mention of housing in rural areas and the need sometimes for mining. That is needed for mining and other issues that can be happening out in rural areas. That can see tenants moved out, so they need to find other accommodation. Some people are much more comfortable in taking perhaps a lower quality of style of dwelling than others, and it is all in the eye of the beholder.

Certainly in relation to any homes that get sold there has to be a disclosure about orders or notices for lease or for sale. With all these questions and comments I am making I certainly want to get some insight into what the minister thinks about owner occupiers in relation to everything I am raising here today. I look at the explanation around clause 5 related to the prescribed minimum housing standards, and it states:

This clause sets out a power to enable the making of regulations to establish prescribed minimum housing standards that must be met for residential premises to be considered safe and suitable for human habitation.

It sets out a list of matters that may form the subject matter of such regulations, including matters relating to construction, amenity, cleanliness, sanitation, safety and access. Certainly this is a very overarching clause, and I note that we have about 50 amendments posed by the shadow spokesperson, the member for Adelaide, and it is in the eye of the beholder. I will be very interested in that, because we all have a different level of what we think is a minimum housing standard. In relation to clause 11, relating to the powers of authorised officers, the explanation states:

This clause sets out the powers of authorised officers in connection with the administration and enforcement of the Act. Such an officer may—

enter and inspect residential premises at a reasonable time;

ask questions of any person found on the premises;

inspect any article or substance found in the premises;

take and remove samples from any substance or other thing found in the premises;

require any person to produce any plans, specifications, books, papers or documents;

examine, copy and take extracts from any plans, specifications, books, papers or documents;

take photographs, films or video recordings;

take measurements, make notes and carry out tests;

Also, they can remove any article that may constitute evidence of the commission of an offence against the act, and require a person to answer any question that may be relevant to the administration or enforcement of the act. This clause further provides that an authorised officer may use reasonable force to enter residential premises if the officer has a warrant or the officer believes it is necessary.

Subclause (6) makes it an offence attracting a maximum penalty of $10,000 for a person to hinder or obstruct an authorised officer, or a person assisting an authorised officer, in the exercise of power under this section, or fail to answer a question put to him or her by an authorised officer to the best of his or her knowledge, information or belief, or fail to provide reasonable assistance in relation to inspection of premises. The ground of self-incrimination cannot be used as an excuse for failure to furnish information required under this clause, and the standard provisions regarding the evidentiary use that may be made of information provided by a person in compliance with the clause apply.

Well, here we do not even have the right to remain silent. I believe this is similar to legislation involved with the fisheries act and the Natural Resources Management Act, with regard to the simple fact that people do not have the basic human right to stay silent. Essentially it has very overarching provisions, such as entry to the house, that are very similar to issues involved in relation to fisheries. So this bill will give the minister wide ranging powers; not only that, they will be to everyone who is delegated under the minister's authority to carry out this task.

People do not like Big Brother government, and they certainly do not like people coming in and just taking over their lives, having a fair crack at them. If, for some reason, they do not want to speak, they want to hold their peace, that becomes an offence. I call that Big Brother government. I think people deserve the right not to speak and they certainly deserve the right to have legal representation, and have time given to them to have that representation in order to defend themselves. It is a basic human right and should be afforded to these people.

I know we are going to agree to a heavily amended bill but we need to get through a whole raft of amendments and have a whole lot of questions answered that will, hopefully, ease some of the assumptions—or not—that I and others have made in regard to this legislation. I believe this will affect everyone in South Australia, not just renters but also people owning their own homes, and there is a mix right across the state. I certainly have a broad mix throughout my electorate, whether it is in residential parks or residential tenancy situations, whether it is government housing or private rental. We have all of that, but we also have very many private residences that are owned by the people who immediately dwell in them.

I hope that gives the minister and her department little bit of homework to do. I will be interested in the continuation of the debate.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:13): In rising to discuss this bill I would like to go back to the original iteration of this piece of legislation and discuss some of the settings that existed in 1940. South Australia was a very different place in 1940. We were still coming out of the effects of the Great Depression, and the Great Depression saw people trying to find accommodation with the very limited and meagre funds they had, trying to find any place in which they could live or reside, have shelter and be safe. What we understand today as housing is, I am sure, extremely different than it was back then.

I remember that during the height of the Great Depression 10,000 people were living on Pinky Flat, in all sorts of little makeshift shanties and lean-tos and whatever else they could find to house themselves, to give themselves that basic human right of shelter from the elements. Obviously, this was a problem. It was also at a time when the Housing Trust was only in its infancy.

The Housing Trust started in the 1930s under premier Richard Butler, and was really taken up by Playford, but Playford used the Housing Trust in a different form, again, to how we understand it today. The Housing Trust was used to build cheap, quickly built accommodation for the hordes of mainly British migrants, working class migrants, coming over here to fill the factories of all the industries that Playford brought to South Australia, and the Housing Trust suited that purpose. As a great admirer of Playford, this piece of legislation has his fingerprints all over it.

Looking at a time when he did not have sufficient housing, looking at a time when he was dealing with a very poor South Australia that was still very much reliant on the swings and roundabouts of commodity prices for base metals and agriculture, he had an economy that was not resilient or self-reliant. He also was dealing with the aftermath of the Great Depression, where we would have seen high levels of substandard housing. This act was used undoubtedly as a mechanism to be able to say, 'Look, we're going to institute some minimum standards around what we consider to be safe, but we're also going to make sure that the rent controls are in place, that people can have access to that cheap housing that they need because we don't have any alternatives.'

Back in 1940, we are talking about the midst of the Second World War, we are talking about a time when South Australia had price controls on a whole range of basic necessities of life. There were price controls on all sorts of things, so the idea of having controls on rent seemed quite natural because it was in line very much with the thinking of the time.

If I can contrast it to today, I think we can find that we are in a completely different situation. The Building Code and the Australian building standards are unrecognisable today from what they were back in 1940. If you built a house today or any time over the past decades, the last 20 or 30 years, that house will be structurally safe if it has been built to the standard, if the proper enforcement tools from local government have been enforced. We do not have situations where we have substandard homes being built. Where those substandard homes are being built there are laws in place to deal with that; so this idea that we have a mass of properties that do not fit the bill is completely wrong. So I think our way to deal with this issue needs to change and needs to evolve also.

This bill has been presented to us as a way of protecting individuals from being exploited by landlords, and that is principally something that we on this side are willing to support and, indeed, why we have offered qualified support for this bill. We do not want to see a situation where those who rely on or need access to affordable housing through the removal of this are unable to have access to that housing; so there is a lot of sympathy on this side of the chamber for that principle.

Having said that, it does very much go against the grain of us on this side of the house looking at ways to deregulate our society. There is a lot of duplication in what exists in this bill as exists in other acts that have been passed by this parliament. I would like to go through a number of clauses as they exist in the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. As I go through them, those who have read through the bill will see that there are startling similarities in the intent, even if there is a different method of achieving that intent. I go to section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which deals with excessive rent. It states:

(1) The Tribunal may, on application by a tenant, declare that the rent payable under a residential tenancy agreement is excessive.

(2) In deciding whether the rent payable under a residential tenancy agreement is excessive, the Tribunal must have regard to—

(a) the general level of rents for comparable premises in the same or similar localities; and

(b) the estimated capital value of the premises at the date of the application; and

(c) the outgoings for which the landlord is liable [to pay] under the agreement; and

(d) the estimated cost of services provided by the landlord and the tenant under the agreement; and

(e) the nature and value of furniture, equipment and other personal property…

(f) the state of repair and general condition of the premises; and

(fa) the estimated cost of goods and services provided under any domestic services agreement…

That seems to me to be extremely similar to the provisions for when rent control notices are issued under this bill. It seems to me that what the Residential Tenancies Act should have regard to is extremely similar to what SACAT, I suppose, should have regard to under this bill; therefore, I am moved to ask why we need it in the first place. There are already protections in the Residential Tenancies Act that allow for these types of controls. The Residential Tenancies Act is actually now under the auspices of SACAT, which is the same body which, we are seeing, is going to deal with this. Section 56 goes on to provide:

(3) If the Tribunal [SACAT] finds, on an application under this section, that the rent payable under a residential tenancy agreement is excessive, the Tribunal may, by order—

(a) fix the rent payable for the premises and vary the agreement by reducing the rent payable under the agreement accordingly; and

(b) fix a date (which cannot be before the date of the application) from which the variation takes effect; and

(c) fix a period…for which the order is to remain in force.

That is a rent control notice by any other name, and the same body is going to be issuing that notice. The difference in process would be that a tenant would need to apply to SACAT to have a judgement under this section, as opposed to having officers delegated under the minister who will go out and be more proactive in their investigation. That said, the outcome we are getting to is the same. The protections are already there for tenants. Again, I am moved to ask why indeed we need to duplicate this process and provide multiple avenues to achieve the same outcome.

I would like to go on to section 68 of the act, which deals with a landlord's obligation to repair. As we know, as part of this bill we see that the government can issue housing assessment orders where officers will go in and assess a house and, from that, are able to issue housing improvement notices which put obligations on landlords to improve the standard of the property. Section 68 of the Residential Tenancies Act states:

(1) It is a term of a residential tenancy agreement that the landlord—

(a) will ensure that the premises, and ancillary property, are in a reasonable state of repair at the beginning of the tenancy and will keep them in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age, character and prospective life; and

(b) will comply with statutory requirements affecting the premises.

(1a) The obligation to repair applies even though the tenant had notice of the state of disrepair before entering into occupation.

It goes on to talk about the landlord not being regarded as being in breach unless:

(i) the landlord has notice of the defect requiring repair; and

(ii) the landlord fails to act with reasonable diligence to have the defect repaired, and

(b) if the landlord is a registered community housing provider…

And, interestingly:

(c) if the premises are subject to a housing improvement notice fixing the maximum rent for the premises, the landlord's obligations under subsection (1)...do not apply.

Essentially, what we are doing here is suggesting that the bill before us supersedes what already exists within the Residential Tenancies Act, but I am yet to be convinced about why this bill is superior to what we have here. Section 68 goes on to say, though, that there are provisions for reasonable compensation from the landlord in respect of any damage to property resulting from the state of disrepair after the tenant has notified and to recover from the landlord reasonable costs incurred by the tenant in having the state of disrepair remedied. There are provisions within an existing piece of legislation very similar to those that the government seeks to introduce in this bill and, again, I ask the question: why is there a need for this duplication?

As someone on this side of the house who now has responsibility for looking at deregulation and ways to simplify the lives of everyday South Australians and how they interact with government, this bill leads me to ask some serious questions. I will be pursuing the following questions in the committee stage later on, but I will read them in now so that I give the department time to come back with some answers.

First, does clause 6 apply to Housing SA properties? Is the government going to be regulating itself? If so, a piece of legislation is not necessarily the correct mechanism for that. Surely the government—being of high standing and supposedly having to adhere to the law and building standards and be model citizens when it comes to complying with existing codes—should not need this extra mechanism.

In relation to clause 12, how many housing assessment orders have been issued over, say, the last five years? I do not know what figures are available, but it would be great to understand how many housing assessment orders have been issued under the existing legislation. In relation to clause 13, I would like to know how many housing improvement orders have been issued under the existing legislation.

In relation to clause 14, how many buildings have been demolished? How many times has the government taken that extreme step under the previous act and said, 'We want you to knock down the house.'? In relation to clause 24, how many buildings in South Australia are the subject of rent controls? Is this a widespread issue or have we seen that, as housing stock is upgraded, the need for this legislation has diminished significantly?

On that issue, I reiterate some of the points that the member for Adelaide raised. Currently, rent control notices are gazetted, which I am sure made a lot of sense in 1940, because the number of houses in South Australia then was a fraction of what it is today, but today there are far superior ways to put this information out there.

With some fanfare, last year the Premier signed into force his Digital by Default Declaration. Alliteration aside, he suggested that everything that possibly can be available online should be, and I am sure that the information collected under this bill should be provided in the same manner. It is worthwhile to have that information out there so that people can make informed decisions about premises that they are looking to rent or premises they currently rent. That information should be out there and readily accessible.

I also want to talk briefly about the amendments we are proposing. First, owner/occupiers should be exempt and free to live in their own houses. Comments made in the minister's second reading speech and by the member for Reynell were around protecting vulnerable South Australians from unscrupulous landlords. We already have protections under the Residential Tenancies Act and those should be maintained. That said, owner/occupiers do not fall into that category.

We on this side of the house believe in freedom and in the rights of individuals to live as they see fit to the greatest possible extent. For this bill to apply to owner/occupiers not only goes against that fundamental principle but also does nothing to further the stated objective of this bill, that is, to support tenants. Owner/occupiers simply do not fall into that category.

Secondly, I refer to comments made by the member for Bragg, with which we certainly have great sympathy, about the excessive nature of the fines. It does look like nothing more than a revenue-grabbing exercise from the government, and we are seeking to halve those fines so that there is still a strong deterrent factor in the amount of money but they are not so excessive as to underwrite the budgets of government departments.

With those thoughts, I look forward to the progression of the debate. I look forward to seeking answers in committee to some of the questions that I will be raising and certainly other members on our side of the house will be raising, and I look forward to seeing its progression to the other chamber. Hopefully, if we do indeed pass this bill into law, it is a bill that is far more sensible, far more realistic and far more attuned to the realities of life in South Australia in 2016, as opposed to perpetuating some of the issues that may have existed in 1940 but certainly do not apply today.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (12:30): I rise to also speak in favour of the Housing Improvement Bill 2015. As the member for Schubert has pointed out, we on this side of the chamber believe that the bill should be supported, whilst being slightly amended. As he has pointed out, there are a number of sections which we have pointed to. I would like to reiterate those concerns and also suggest that members opposite in the government also look to amend these sections. As we have pointed out this morning, we would like to amend section 11 to ensure that the bill only applies to tenanted properties and not owner-occupied, for the reasons that my colleagues on this side of the chamber have pointed out.

We also believe that the penalties in various sections of the bill are excessive. Whilst we on this side of the chamber understand that sometimes you do put in such penalties to serve as a deterrent, I would ask the government to consider and reflect on who exactly they might be hitting with these penalties and, really, is that the ultimate outcome they want? I would ask them to reflect on that, and I would suggest that some of these penalties should be slightly watered down. Penalties, obviously, are important to serve as a deterrent, but I think they are exacerbated and excessive at some points.

Section 41 also should be amended to state that the SACAT should provide all decisions in writing. As a member of parliament, when you have a disgruntled constituent—obviously, I do not have any disgruntled constituents in my electorate, but when they come to me from other electorates—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Wright.

Mr TARZIA: When they come to me from other electorates, some of them have been to SACAT and sometimes I see their frustration when they may not have some of these decisions in writing. I think someone who has a dispute and seeks their day not in court but in the tribunal should have proper closure and should seek that in writing, so I would agree with that amendment.

We also have suggested looking at section 52. That should be amended to ensure that a reasonable attempt is made to serve all the relevant parties to any dispute as well. It has been spoken of how the original Housing Improvement Act 1940 was a long time ago, and it was. It was a very long time ago. Many things were different back then. I believe Winston Churchill became prime minister of the UK in 1940, so they were very different times: economically, socially, for health care, and world-wide events. As has been pointed out on this side of the chamber, dwellings were made out of completely different materials, and climates were different as well.

I have many builders who reside in my electorate and also are in the business of building, and they often tell me how the technology has changed and how what they did many years ago simply would not apply today. It is essential that this sort of legislation is updated from time to time, for various reasons, to make sure that there are checks and balances on housing to ensure that safety, which is paramount, is maintained. Some of the materials that were used in 1940, and I can think of a couple, have been found to pose health issues, and so obviously the same materials that were used back then are not used in all cases.

There are property prices as well. Obviously, if we allow these dwellings to get into such disarray and decay it also can have an effect on neighbouring dwellings as well. It is also the right thing to do to maintain housing to a quality standard. We are pretty lucky in South Australia. If you go to other parts of the world you soon find out how lucky we are, but I think that is a benefit of South Australia and Australia and we should work to maintain the quality that we have. It also applies to investment. If investors and business know that the levels of housing are at such a good standard, it will also flow through to that part of the economy as well.

In the early stages of the 19^th century we know that South Australia had high demand and the standard of living and housing certainly was not as high as it is now. Obviously, this legislation has been put forward to ensure that there are safe and appropriate housing standards in our state. There has been a review of the act and a number of minimum safety standards have been put forward to ensure that owners carry out the maintenance that is necessary. As I pointed out, I think that if we do not continue to monitor this sort of thing and in this type of legislation, we run the risk that people in our state could be exposed to significant safety issues, health hazards, unfair rent or substandard homes.

There was a discussion paper that was released in 2010, as has been pointed out, about this type of legislation and it did receive strong endorsement by the people who are in tenancy support organisations as well. There have also been—I believe, 16—a number of submissions supporting the Housing Improvement Bill as well. Of course, the housing bill 2015 will repeal the Housing Improvement Act 1940.

I reflected on who exactly this would affect most and, obviously, unsuitable and unsafe housing can certainly especially affect lower income households and people like students or new migrants. For a lot of these people it is important that the state puts these protections in place for their welfare more so than anything. It is important that people in our state are able to feel safe and are able to be secure in their own homes, and I think it is very clear that this legislation certainly aims to ensure that dwellings that are built are built to a safe and reasonable standard for human habitation.

When I looked at the HIA 1940 it was quite clear that that act was outdated. I think in one section it even refers to pounds, which we obviously do not use anymore in South Australia. I believe that the bill is relatively explicit. It certainly improves the current legislation and, obviously, what we are here to do on this side of the chamber is to modernise and contemporise our legislation when we can.

There are a number of penalties available under the act for non-compliance. One of them, for example, I believe, is for $20,000 and, as I pointed out earlier on, I think the government should certainly reflect on who these penalties actually could be imposed upon and what sort of effect that will have and how it will affect the housing market. I think they are excessive in parts and they should reflect on those.

I wanted to talk a little bit about a few sections in particular, starting with section 5. Section 5 talks about prescribing minimum housing standards. Members have expressed that perhaps that can be a little bit vague. I would welcome the minister perhaps addressing how exactly we will keep that to an objective level. Will it be advertised? What level will we be looking at when we talk about minimum housing standards?

In relation to section 8—Delegation, delegation is obviously important, and I imagine that there will be bodies or groups set up to ensure that this sort of legislation is implemented. I think that identity cards, as outlined in section 10, are a fantastic idea. I have talked to a lot of tenants, especially in state housing, who sometimes struggle to understand why their housing manager, for example, changes quite often. I think that would be of enormous benefit; it is such a small section, but I think that would be very worthwhile.

In relation to section 12—Housing assessment orders, and section 13—Housing improvement orders, obviously the minister can issue these orders to the owner of the residential premises if the minister would have reason to believe that, say, the premises are unsafe or they are unsuitable for human habitation. There are sections in place to remediate the defects as well. A lot of the time, however, you will not necessarily be dealing with very wealthy owners. I think the intent is there, and hopefully there are deterrents to do the right thing so that you will not have disputes and end up in SACAT.

It looks very front-end, if I can put it another way; there is a lot of good front-end work here, but I question the back end of the legislation. I notice that SACAT would have jurisdiction, for example, for a dispute in this area of up to $40,000. I would have thought that if a place is in need of significant repair, you are not really going to end up with a dispute of under $40,000. It is probably going to be more than that, and it would bypass SACAT; however, I think the intention is good.

The courts are filled at the moment. We know there are enough backlogs in the courts and that the Attorney is obviously not interested in court reform. We have a leaking court at the moment; there are literally holes everywhere in the court system at the moment. But, I think the intention here is good. I think if SACAT can deal with these disputes of under $40,000, that will go a long way to freeing up other parts of the courts system. So, that is a very good suggestion, and I compliment the writers of the bill and the department; I think that is an outstanding initiative.

The tribunal has been given great powers. I believe that they are adequate, and they are wide. I also notice things like restraining orders that can be implemented. Again, that is a very good suggestion. Obviously, we do not want to be ordering restraining orders if we do not need to; however, that is, I suppose, a measure of last resort.

Sometimes we have no other choice but to issue restraining orders to make sure that we protect property owners, landlords, tenants in some cases, and also the property itself. If these properties are allowed to decay, that can impact upon neighbouring properties. Fires and other things can also be started. It is a measure of last resort, but I think it is necessary for this kind of bill.

I have spoken about reasons. If there is a dispute, without a doubt these reasons should be in writing. I cannot understand why you would not want to give someone an opportunity to have their result in writing. What is wrong with that? I think, for transparency, it is important that someone is given an answer to a case in writing. The register is also a very good idea, to ensure that you keep relevant and appropriate records for this legislation.

Overall, I would well and truly support the intention of the bill. I hope that we have been constructive, as part of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, in registering our issues with some sections of the bill. I plead with the minister to take those into consideration for the betterment of the bill, and I commend it to the house.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (12:44): I rise to add some comments to the Housing Improvement Bill, and I want to put on the record that I am not a supporter of many aspects of this bill. I believe it goes against many of my core beliefs of small government and individual liberties. I will detail a few of those concerns, which have already been mentioned. Of course, the main one is the fixing of rent by regulation. I believe in a free market; I believe in the supply and demand principle of a free market; and I believe in getting government out of our lives, not increasing the footprint of government into everyday life.

The fixing of rent by regulation goes against every one of my core beliefs, and when I read that part of the bill I was reminded of a very famous interview with Kerry Packer who was brought before a Senate inquiry. Basically, he was having a very poignant moment where he was saying that before we introduce any new legislation we should first explain to the people which legislation we are repealing or getting rid of, because over the last 150 years there have been thousands and thousands of new pieces of legislation come in, and one could argue that the state is no better off, or that our personal liberties are no better off because of that.

I would go back to the principle of the Residential Tenancies Act, and I firmly believe that if this act was enforced properly then many of the issues that we are trying to address by this bill would also be addressed in due course. We have to be very careful in this place, and also as an opposition, to make sure that the government does not just take the easy road. The easy road is to come up with more legislation: to put a bandaid on an issue. In actual fact, enforcing the current legislation would achieve much of what this legislation is trying to do.

The other major issue I have is in relation to the recovery of costs and expenses incurred by the minister. I would hate to see us in a situation where the first order is imposed and the owner of said property carries out all work in good faith and is then lumped with exorbitant cost recovery by a government enforcing this type of legislation.

My main concern with this legislation is that it sets up an adversarial situation right from the start. I would like to see more support being put in. From my reading of it, I believe it assumes that owners of properties are perhaps wealthy, perhaps have the means, perhaps are letting these places run down on purpose or deliberately, and yet that may not always be the case. I am all for protecting vulnerable people—it is one of my passions in life—but I honestly believe the Residential Tenancies Act already does that.

The other big issue I have with this and I will not support is including owner/occupiers in this bill, and I want to refer to an example of what I am going through with a constituent at the moment. It does sidetrack a little bit, but it gives an example of an owner/occupier who has been battling for four years to have a house that they had built by a registered builder rectified so that it is fit for living.

The trial and traumas that this couple have gone through, and they are constituents of mine, and the complete lack of empathy by Consumer and Business Services, lack of professionalism and lack of enforcement of rules by the HIA lead me to believe that instead of putting bandaids on solutions, we actually need to address some of these things. This is the story of Monique and Robert McGregor, and they live in Lila Crescent at Nene Valley in what would be a half a million-dollar beach house. They are not wealthy, but they invested all their savings into their beachside house.

This is a letter to the department of consumer and business affairs requesting advice on how to best proceed and to protect themselves due to a builder who has carried out shonky work and who is now putting at risk their premises. The letter states (and I will skip the first part):

These defects have deteriorated over the last few years to a point they are now causing other defects and are rotting our internal framework. If left for yet another winter [without being] remedied, this will cause the home to possibly collapse as stated by the structural engineer.

We have had numerous conciliation meetings undertaken by the HIA approved inspector and the Grant District council. At every one of these meetings the builder agreed to fix the defects. The home has had many structural defects including the following:

1. The home is not built to plans agreed to and submitted to council.

2. Does not meet the Australian building code.

3. Is not built from the materials the engineer and plan stipulate.

4. Does not meet the energy rating that was submitted.

5. The home is not weatherproof and is letting in a large quantity of water, some of which's remain within the wall space even during summer.

6. We have an internal chimney structure that is unsafe to use.

7. We have electrical issues [probably caused due to the water].

We also have wet insulation, mould within the cavity and rotten framework—

Now, this is a brand new house—

—holding up the double-storey stone structure. We have a rebuilt chimney within the home that now emits smoke into the upstairs bathroom, which was not an issue before its collapse and nobody will take responsibility and sign off on its safety. These are just the major issues we are dealing with at present. We now are experiencing electrical issues that could be linked to the water ingress but yet to be thoroughly explored by an independent entity with all the relevant information and history. These issues all date back to 2012. We have had two rebuilds of the front deck and Portico. We have had numerous patch ups and a rebuild of the fireplace…In short, the relevant authorities all have many rules, regulations and codes but we are yet to find a department to enforce any of these thus far. We have no way of controlling when, if or how these repairs are actioned by our builder and the result is:

A builder that believes there are no consequences for his actions.

A builder who does only Band-Aid fixes to a standard that causes more defects.

A builder who is able to whittle away our warranty period doing only minimum work every six to twelve months.

A builder who blames other contractors and does not take responsibility for the home.

A council that will not enforce any of its codes or regulations.

A home that has been a danger to us and visitors.

A home that has been a building site for four years.

A home that is not weatherproof

An asset we cannot afford to fix and cannot sell

A financial hardship due to the cost of inspections, fees & reports

Stress and anxiety

No department to hold the builder accountable for his actions or force him to rectify these issues in a timely or professional standard

I will highlight a history of this home so far:

1. Signed building item schedule 21.12.2010

2. Submitted plans for our home to December…2010

3. Plans approved by council 15.02.2011

4. Slab poured May 2011

5. Timber framework erected…November 2011…

7. Handover of home Easter 2012

8. We reported water and movement issues to builder Easter 2012.

9. Builder investigated some of these issues several months later but no cause was found. We then asked the builder if we could ask for a second opinion to try to find a solution September 2012.

10. We contacted the District Council of Grant to ask for assistance and they attended the residence in September 2012.

11. We employed a structural engineer and independent inspector to investigate issues and write reports outlining current issues on the 11.10.2012.

12. The reports were given to the builder 16.10.2012.

13. A conciliation meeting was arranged with the builder, us and Mr Stratten at the Grant District council offices Circa January 2013.

14. First rebuild started on the 4^th of February 2013.

15. Fireplace fell in on Thursday16 of May 2013.

16. Friday 17 of May 2013 we contacted our independent inspector again for assistance and he attended the property. We were supplied with a supplementary defect report to forward to our builder.

17. Wednesday 22 of May 2013 Mr Kent Hopkins and Mr Gibbs (GDC) attended the property. Mr Hopkins (HIA) urged us to contact the HIA for assistance [which we did].

18. Tuesday 28 of May 2013 I spoke to Gaynor at our local Consumer affairs office and supplied her with our request for assistance and relevant documents/reports.

19. The builder agreed to conciliation with HIA appointed inspector.

20. Consumer affairs contacted us on…29 May of 2013 stating they were closing the file as HIA was now involved, even though we requested them to stay involved they declined, stating we could reopen the file if the HIA conciliation failed, at a later date…

22. The HIA approved independent inspector attended the property and we had a conciliation meeting between us and the builder at a cost on Wednesday 24 of July 2013.

23. A Scott's schedule was drawn up by myself with help from our inspector in September 2013.

It goes on for another three pages right up until January 2016. The latest, because there are three or four pages of this and I will not have time to read it all in, is:

To date this is as far as we have progressed and none of the original issues have been remedied. If we take this case to court we would not attain enough financially to finance a permanent fix of all structural issues let alone finishing to a professional standard following repairs. The structure of the home requires immediate attention as stated in the last structural report pertaining and restricted to the water issues only.

In this letter Monique is asking consumer and business affairs to notify them as soon as possible, outlining how they can bring this debacle to a conclusion. Their response, which she rang me about yesterday, is that the business and consumer affairs office is refusing to get involved.

I wanted to use that case to highlight that we have existing legislation in place which is not being enforced without implementing more regulation. Unless this government can assure me that it is going to be enforced—and its track record is not up to scratch—then I have serious reservations in supporting many, if any, of the amendments put forward.

With that, I leave with Kerry Packer's statement that, before we introduce any new legislation in this state, we first should think: is the existing legislation adequate if it was enforced properly and what legislation should be we be taking out to streamline the process and make this truly a great state? With those words, I will conclude.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00.