Residential Parks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 September 2017).

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (20:37): I rise to speak on the Residential Parks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2017. The bill was introduced by the minister in his role as Minister for Consumer and Business Services on 28 September. I will be the lead speaker and the member for Hammond will be a star performer in this debate and will be making a contribution. I know that you are going to be waiting with bated breath to hear that contribution, because I am sure it will be excellent.

The situation is that the government had released a discussion paper in 2016 to deal with the question of security of people living in residential parks. Largely, they are people who live on low incomes and are frequently retirees. I think it is fair to say that the controversy that prevailed around the Holdfast Bay council asking 40 residents of the Brighton Caravan Park to leave their property, when they decided to redevelop that site, brought this matter to a head. Back in January 2013, the response from a number of these residents was illustrative of their distress and a number of them took legal action.

I recall meeting with Mr Xenophon, formerly of the Legislative Council, who had supported them in the Supreme Court. My recollection is that he had attached their handwritten statements to cover sheet affidavits, which is rather a cheat's way of lodging documents, but I am not here to make comment on his legal skills. Nevertheless, he assisted them. Those proceedings, unsurprisingly, went nowhere and were ultimately withdrawn, but they did at least precipitate some discussion.

I think it is fair to say and appropriate to recognise that the Holdfast Bay council had, both initially and at all material times, placed on the table an offer of compensation to assist the residents to relocate. I say the word 'compensation' in a fairly loose form, in the sense that, whilst there was denial of an obligation to provide compensation to people who were being asked to move, I think they were cognisant of the importance of assisting people who had been resident in their area and had been duly paying their tenancy to be relocated and that this was both reasonable and appropriate.

Ultimately, the negotiations resolved in a settlement between the council and the Brighton Caravan Park residents. That issue was itself resolved, but it highlighted the question of how one should properly deal with these matters. I think it is fair to say (and there was general media around this) that there were concerned people who resided in the area who felt that they were lawful owners of property, that they paid their rates and were paying all their state taxes and the like and that they had rights of occupancy of the interests, whether in fee simple or otherwise, in property they owned.

They felt that it was rather unfair, from their perspective, that people who lived in the caravan park should be presenting to argue that they should have some permanency and, in the absence of it being continued or it being interrupted, should be given some significant compensation for what had not been a legal right but for which there was felt to be some need to provide some assistance, as I have said.

Not unreasonably, the government issued this discussion paper to talk about how these matters might be dealt with in the future, with the security of tenure being the primary concern. Other issues such as the disclosure of information, safety plans in parks and the payment of compensation were all matters that were raised during that consultation. The key aspects of this bill are, first, to provide an obligation to disclose information on establishing residential park agreements, that machinery provisions include being in writing, that a sound copy of the written park rules is to be provided to the residents and that penalties are to apply for default.

Secondly, it is to provide security of tenure at the end of a fixed-term agreement. Currently, this continues for a periodic tenancy only. It can be terminated on no specific grounds with 90 days' notice. Residents of more than five years are entitled to renew terms at expiration unless there is a statutory ground not to do so. Park owners also have to give 90 days' notice prior to expiry of any changes in the terms proposed.

Thirdly, the bill will mandate residents' committees for parks, with more than 20 long-term residents and obligations on park owners to facilitate meetings and to respond to issues raised; and, fourthly, it will provide improved safety measures, including a mandatory safety evacuation plan, with copies to be provided to residents and to be reviewed annually.

The consultation provided by members of the government on 9 October this year is noted and appreciated by the opposition. There were members of the Consumer and Business Services offices available to provide machinery information. The government claims that they had consulted the relevant stakeholders, with general approval from the South Australian Residential Parks Residents Association, SA Parks and other state government agencies and park residents.

SA Parks is an organisation representing caravan parks in South Australia. They presented a number of submissions to commissioners Soulio and Chapman and proposed a number of amendments. We understand that ultimately these were incorporated into the bill. As usual, we have not seen any draft regulations, but this is always problematic because we are expected to assume that these will be able to be resolved.

The government also provided a number of residential park listings that we had sought, and I appreciate that information being provided. I also sought information in relation to residents' access to advice. There are 19 advice and conciliation officers in the advice and conciliation section of CBS. They are available to provide advice in respect of owners' rights and responsibilities and assisting in dispute resolution. My recollection, on consultation, is that no extra staff are to be allocated for this purpose, but we are yet to see whether that is going to be a matter that can be accommodated in CBS.

Clearly, residential parks provide a level of low-cost accommodation to a number in our community who are probably the least likely to be in a position to have other alternative accommodation and whose options therefore are extremely limited. Not long after coming into this parliament, when the Hon. Kevin Foley was treasurer, I can recall visiting a residential park in the northern districts. I will not name it, but I make the point that it was a residential park where the purchase of interests had been subject to very significant payments of stamp duty and the obligation to pay was challenged.

It took a long time for the government to accept that these people did not have a legal interest as a registered proprietor, that they were acquiring a right to occupy and that was it and that they ought be relieved from the obligation to meet the significant stamp duty that the former treasurer demanded. It was a long fight, but eventually the government, through the former premier, agreed that that would not prevail and that these people would be provided with some relief, thankfully, because to me it was like stealing from the most vulnerable and, frequently, the poorest. I certainly hope that practice does not prevail in any other way in relation to those who are living in residential parks and, if it does, it should cease immediately.

Nevertheless, we commend the government for having progressed the review of tenancy arrangements generally. I hope that the formality of this legislation will help as some guide and that there will be assistance for those who will need support in mediating resolutions to some of the protocols that will be enforced under this legislation. With that, I support the passage of the bill.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (20:48): I rise to speak to the Residential Parks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2017. I note that the bill was introduced by the Minister for Consumer and Business Services on 28 September this year and that it goes about amending the Residential Parks Act 2007.

It was back in March 2016 that the government released a discussion paper aiming to increase the long-term security in residential parks for those on low incomes and retirees. From what we are told, residential parks accommodate approximately 2,600 residents in South Australia, some in dedicated facilities and others in a portion of the area such as caravan parks. Tenancy arrangements are regulated by the act. The accommodation ranges from caravans with annexes to manufactured homes.

Certainly, as far as we can understand with advice from the minister's office, the full list of residential parks in South Australia include Seachange Village, which is at Gardiner Street Goolwa, in my electorate; Rosetta Village, Maude Street, Victor Harbor, which is just outside my electorate; the Northern Community Residential Village, Andrews Road, Penfield; The Palms, Supple Road, Waterloo Corner, Virginia; Hillier Park, Hillier Road, Hillier; Lakeside Goolwa, Banfield Road, Goolwa North—and I will have some more debate about Lakeside and some of the history there, obviously in my electorate. We also have Waikerie Lifestyle Village at Waikerie; the Bridge Village, Murray Bridge, which I understand started off with eight homes; and Beachside Village at Normanville.

There are somewhere around 200 caravan and tourist parks throughout South Australia and, from what we understand, about 20 of these have other dedicated residential park living. However, there may be other long-term residents in many more caravan parks throughout the state.

Before the Holdfast Bay episode, which received a lot of media attention—and I will go back to the summer of 2009-10—Goolwa was coming into my electorate out of Finniss with a redistribution. I went down there with my family and we had a holiday. Where Lakeside Goolwa is now was the Goolwa North caravan park. There were a lot of sites there where you could have your camper trailer (which we had) or a caravan, and that is fine.

There were also a lot of what you would call semipermanent sites—some of them looked fairly permanent—which essentially were a caravan next to an annexe that looked like a reasonably permanent structure, and the tyres on the caravan probably needed renewing before you could tow it away. So they had been there a long time. There were some quite reasonable structures there. They were all on land and they had agreements with the owner as far as staying there on long-term leases.

I saw some of the sites a few years ago. Back then some of these sites had quite tidy set-ups, with handy annexes built that were almost like a room that you might build onto a house. Some of these sites were on the market back then for something like $20,000 or $30,000. I thought that was interesting because essentially you were buying into something that just gave you the right of tenure, as long as you had a lease arrangement with the owner of the property.

The person who now owns where Lakeside Goolwa is purchased the property from the previous owners only a year or two after that, I believe. That was when I was contacted by many people. A lot of people from Adelaide had semipermanent vans down there with some fairly permanent looking structures tacked onto the caravans. I met with them and we went through the process and I said, 'Right, I will talk to the person who has bought this property and we'll see if we can get a resolution.'

I went down there and met with them and with the owner of the property, and he said, 'Yes, I've bought this as a legal arrangement. I own the freehold. I can essentially do what I like.' He was not quite as blunt as that, but that is essentially how it stood. I said, 'Well, that's how the law stands at the day.' He has actually turned it into Lakeside Goolwa. There are a lot of people from further afield in my electorate—I know there are some people from the Mallee and from Peake—who have gone to live there and they are having a marvellous time.

However, it did create a lot of issues where people thought they had some sort of longer term tenancy, but it was only as good as the agreement because they did not own the soil under their van and their annex. No matter how solid the structure that was built, it was not freehold. It was some sort of leasehold rental arrangement with the owner of the property.

I did my best to negotiate an outcome through all the parties' understanding, and to me it was black and white: the business owner bought a property and wanted to develop it. From everything I could see, he had the legal right to do so, but there were some issues about relocating. I worked with some of these people on where else they could go in Goolwa or Victor Harbor or other places around the Fleurieu. Some just wanted to retire their vans once they got them off the site, because they obviously had to remove the vans and the annexes. It was a difficult process. There was some interesting media about it, but there always is when there is a lot of passion in the conversation.

I could not see where the people leasing the sites had much of a leg to stand on when it came to the rule of the law. This is where some of this legislation is helping to fix some of that. However, at the time the owner was perfectly within his rights to do what he was doing. He is developing a magnificent site, and I must say that it is providing some great homes for people in their latter years and a great lifestyle choice down at Goolwa.

It is interesting, because down the track (it was only a few years ago) this one got a lot of publicity and there was a lot more controversy around the Holdfast Bay council, which advised 40 residents of the Brighton Caravan Park that they had to leave. That was in January 2013. From what I understand, the residents were offered $8,000 each, which is probably a fairly reasonable amount, to help them relocate. Some of the residents took legal action. Nick Xenophon got involved, supporting them in the Supreme Court, and got a lot of media out of it, but essentially the proceedings went nowhere and fell apart.

As I said, the council had offered residents compensation, and I understand it was in the field of around $8,000 a site. Ultimately, there were some settlements agreed, but I understand from information I have received only today that that settlement was only in the manner of $1,000 to $2,000 a site. Essentially, with Nick Xenophon getting involved, these people lost $6,000 or $7000 a site, from the information that has been given to me.

It is an issue that got a lot of media but it did not get a good outcome. It certainly highlighted, though, the lack of security for people on these long-term sites. It also shows that you need to be careful of what you wish for and be careful of what people promise they can do because, if they do not follow through, you get an outcome that could have been a lot better. There was obviously this issue around the insecurity of tenure and the inadequacy of legislative requirements on disclosure of information and safety in parks, and the payment of compensation was also brought up.

In regard to key aspects of the bill, there is an obligation to disclose information in establishing residential park agreements, machinery provisions, including them being in writing, the provision of a signed copy, and the written park rules being provided to the resident, and there are penalties that apply for any default.

There is security of tenure at the end of a fixed term agreement. Currently, this continues for a periodic tenancy only. It can be terminated on no specific grounds with 90 days' notice. Residents of more than five years are entitled to renew terms at expiration unless there are statutory grounds not to do so. Park owners also have to give 90 days' notice prior to expiry of any changes or terms proposed. I know there have been some issues raised as far as some as the park owners are concerned, in relation to whether things have gone too far one way, but I think a lot of that has been addressed in the bill.

Other aspects of the bill include mandated residents' committees for parks with more than 20 long-term residents and obligations on the park owner to facilitate meetings and respond to any issues raised. There are also improved safety measures, including mandating safety evacuation plans, with copies to be provided to residents and reviewed annually. The government have indicated that they have developed the bill in consultation with the South Australian Residential Parks Residents Association, SA Parks, state government agencies and park residents. Consumer and Business Services will advise and provide consultation services. No extra staff are proposed, and they have undertaken to update information material for both parties to be available on the website.

Because people directly involved in these parks are in my electorate or in the neighbouring electorate of Finniss, I was involved in some meetings along the way. On 10 June 2014, there was a meeting at Seachange Village in Goolwa, which was quite heavily attended by residents not just from Goolwa but also from Victor Harbor. On 18 September 2015, another meeting was held at Rosetta Village in Victor Harbor.

I must acknowledge that the minister sent several departmental staff to consult with residents of Goolwa and Victor Harbor at those meetings. I was made to feel more than welcome and was invited to sit up the front with them, which I appreciated, and the departmental staff answered questions from residents and interested parties. Certainly, from what I saw, there was consultation in my area, and people had ample opportunity to explore the changes that were going to happen under this bill.

I think it is a good lesson in law. As I indicated, because this occurred in my electorate I was fully involved. Sometimes I bore the brunt of some negative comments, but on the face of it, when I looked at the rule of law as it stood at the time, I thought, 'Well, the owner of this village wants to change the living arrangements.' Most of the work has been done. It is a very beautiful lakeside retirement village and many people are enjoying their retirement in Goolwa.

It is not hard to see why people thought they had longer term tenure. There were some vans and annexes and a number of quite substantial buildings that had been there for not just a few years but for decades. There was a similar issue at Brighton Caravan Park in Holdfast Bay. I think some people took legal action, which would have cost them a lot of money. I think they got a lot less out of it, and this was on the advice of Nick Xenophon, who managed to get some headlines but did not get the result. I think you have to be careful what you wish for.

This legislation appears to quell a lot of the issues that were brought up not just with the consultation but also the dramatic lifestyle changes, as was the case with both these parks that I have discussed here today. Yes, it did cause an upset, but there is a simple fact in life: if you are only a tenant, you do not own the land under your feet. You have to have full ownership to be able to do exactly what you like. From what I understand, this bill will offset a lot of those issues. Let's hope that it works well into the future and that we can have beneficial retirement living.

It worries me that I am eligible to enter these parks now; it is a bit of a concern. I am not planning to go there too soon if I have my way. Let's see how it pans out, and hopefully we can get better outcomes for the citizens of this state into the future.

Ms VLAHOS (Taylor) (21:04): I would like to speak on this bill tonight. When I first came to this parliament in 2010, one of the first issues my constituency in northern Adelaide raised with me was the need to amend this act. My predecessor as member for Taylor, Trish White, had done a lot of work representing the people in her electorate around Elizabeth Village and The Palms at Virginia, around establishing rights and entitlements for people living in residential parks. Their needs are unique, and over the time I have been a member of this area, for eight years now, they have continually represented through the statewide Residential Parks Association, through Chris Sloper and Chris Cairalle-Allen, a number of their concerns to ongoing governments about what they need.

But I am very pleased to be standing here tonight and to see the Attorney's bill come before this place. It was a pleasure to go out last year and host two of the listening posts in both those parks and talk to people who have been longstanding residents—each park had its own unique set of circumstances—and give them some say in their future. Many come to these parks with modest incomes, but substantially invest in permanent housing on, effectively, a rented pad. To give them some surety about the future of how their lives will be conducted is a significant thing for this parliament to do for the several hundred people who live in the Northern Adelaide Plains in those parks.

Increasingly it is becoming a very popular way of living for not just necessarily people who are becoming more elderly in their years, as I think many families potentially may wish to have a holiday home and a home in the city, people who are looking for flexible lifestyles, and residential parks provide that. This bill represents a very good thing that this parliament is doing tonight. I know that the people in my electorate who have come to me regularly over the months and years that I have been the member for Taylor will welcome the passing of this bill tonight.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (21:07): I thank all the contributors to the debate this evening. It is one of these rare occasions where everybody is pretty much of a same mind, and I appreciate the remarks of the member for Bragg and the member for Hammond and, of course, my colleague who has experience in the northern parts of Adelaide with her electorate of Taylor.

There is no perfect answer to these problems—there is always a balancing act. No doubt some people somewhere will be unhappy with exactly where we have struck the balance here. But what I can say to the parliament is that I am very confident we have struck the balance in a much more reasonable place than it was previously and, as the member for Bragg made the point at some length, we are talking about people who often are quite vulnerable people, and we are talking in some instances about people who have sunk their whole life savings into a home which they have been under the mistaken impression is on land over which they have some tenure and it turns out they could be booted off at five minutes notice. That is not really very good.

It was high time we came to some method of rebalancing the relationship between the park owners and the occupiers, and I think this strikes that balance, as well as we can, to try to be as fair as we can to everybody. I acknowledge that no doubt there will be somebody out there who is not 100 per cent pleased with what we do here this evening. If we were worried about people being 100 per cent happy with everything we did here, we would be a very worried group of people indeed.

I am convinced that basically we have done a good job, and I thank all those people who contributed, I thank the members who got involved in this, and I am genuinely very appreciative of the support of members of the opposition, who obviously have thought quite deeply about this issue and have the same concerns about the imbalance that has been in the system for some time. I think we can all be quite well satisfied that we are doing a good piece of work this evening.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (21:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.