Residential Tenancies (Domestic Violence Protections) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 September 2015.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:43): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to support the second reading of this bill. It is opportune at this particular time, this particular week, that the parliament is further considering legislative reform in this particular area.

It is clear from public statements made today by new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull that domestic violence issues are important issues not only for state and territory governments but also for the national government. The Adelaidenow website of The Advertiser carries a story today headed 'Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull unveils multimillion dollar domestic violence package', and leads that story with:

Australia must become a country that respects women to end the 'national disgrace' of domestic violence, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says.

Mr Turnbull today unveiled a $41 million package to tackle the issue, including measures to better train frontline officers and funding for 20,000 mobile phones for at-risk women.

I acknowledge the announcements and actions of Prime Minister Turnbull and minister Michaelia Cash in the announcements today. In doing so, I want to place on the record our acknowledgement, as a parliament I would hope, the role the former prime minister Tony Abbott took in relation to the domestic violence issue.

This issue was taken up at the national level at the COAG meeting back in April of this year, when there was an agreement between state leaders and the federal government of the importance of coordinated action between the national government and state and territory governments to tackle the domestic violence issue on a number of fronts.

As I said, there was that agreement in April and I think leaders at that stage asked Rosie Batty and former police commissioner Ken Lay, I think it was, to provide detailed advice to leaders at COAG in terms of what was appropriate for coordinated government action across the nation to tackle domestic violence. On 10 June this year, it was stated:

The Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, has said 'real men don't hit' in a strongly worded plea to end domestic violence at a conference in Sydney.

He said 'as a husband, as the brother of three sisters and father of three daughters' violence against women and children was 'absolutely abhorrent' to him, 'as it should be to everyone'.

He then went on to outline the work that had been done by national leaders—by 'national leaders' I mean state and territory and federal leaders—at the COAG conference in April. He outlined that in April there had been an announcement of a national domestic violence order scheme which would ensure that domestic violence orders in one jurisdiction would be recognised in every state and territory. Again, and more recently, on 13 September, so just a little while ago, there was a story about family violence this week. 'Gutless' was the headline, and it continued:

Any man who attacks a woman is 'weak and gutless'. That's the message Tony Abbott wants heard in every Australian home.

The prime minister is preparing to announce later this week further efforts to stem a wave of domestic violence across country.

'Violence against women and children is never, ever acceptable,' he told reporters in Perth on Sunday.

That article then outlined that state and territory leaders and Mr Abbott had discussed domestic violence during a COAG meeting in April. They had asked Rosie Batty and Ken Lay to advise leaders and pledged to agree by year's end on a national domestic violence order scheme. The article continued:

This would mean sharing information on active DVOs across jurisdictions.

But Mr Abbott said on Sunday he didn't want to wait until the end of the year to act.

'Frankly, I don't want to wait even until another summit,' he said.

He has promised a more concrete announcement by the end of this week.

That was the week commencing 13 September. As is the way of the world, a number of events occurred at the national level, which meant that former prime minister Tony Abbott was not in a position to announce the funding package he was indicating on 13 September would be approved by the federal government.

What we have seen is a funding package announced today. I am not sure whether it is exactly the same as the one that was being contemplated beforehand or whether or not it has been tweaked in any way but, nevertheless, what I did want to indicate is that at the national level under the leadership of former prime minister Abbott, and now under the leadership of Prime Minister Turnbull, there has been national leadership on this issue and a willingness of the federal Liberal government to work with state and territory governments across the board in terms of shared responsibility to tackle the issue.

The bill before us is intended to provide further protections to victims of domestic violence in the tenancy sector, to terminate a residential tenancy or rooming house agreement where SACAT is satisfied that domestic abuse has occurred or there is an intervention order in force against a person residing at the premises. So, it is tackling a specific element. The national announcements are obviously tackling other issues that relate to the important issue of domestic violence. This measure is restricted to this important issue, but restricted nevertheless to this issue of the tenancy sector and domestic violence in the tenancy sector.

Present arrangements, as outlined to the Liberal Party, are that a tenant or landlord may apply to SACAT under the current law to terminate a residential tenancy based on hardship. However, SACAT's powers are currently limited in cases where the tenant is a co-tenant with a person being violent towards them, because co-tenants are jointly and severally liable for the tenancy arrangement. Thus, under the current law, SACAT cannot terminate a residential tenancy unless the other tenant joins the application, indicates no opposition to it or SACAT is satisfied that the other tenant has abandoned the residential tenancy.

Clearly, those circumstances are very restrictive and very limited in the sorts of cases we are talking about and therefore in many cases are of little practical use for victims of domestic violence. SACAT is also unable to make an order that one tenant in a co-tenancy is liable for compensation to the landlord to the exclusion of other co-tenants. Clearly, again, that is the restrictive nature of the current legislation which does not assist in terms of resolving the ramifications of domestic violence and the impact on tenancy arrangements.

In situations of domestic violence, this generally results in the victim being required to pay for damage caused to the property by the perpetrator, either out of the bond or as compensation, or in some cases both. Under the bill the parliament is about to support, it is proposed that a tenant will be able to apply to SACAT to terminate a residential tenancy, based on domestic abuse in specified circumstances. Those circumstances are specified in the legislation. For example, those specified circumstances will be where there has been a SAPOL report or a report from a domestic violence service provider.

One of the questions I put to the minister for response at the second reading or during committee is whether she can clarify the definition of a 'domestic violence service provider'; that is, is there an acknowledged or accepted list by the department or government agencies of a 'domestic violence service provider'? Does it mean that any person employed full-time or part-time by a particular service fits that definition, or does the legislation provide any guidelines on how that is to be interpreted by SACAT? Ultimately, as we have seen with SACAT, it will be what the letter of the law indicates in terms of some of the critical decisions it will take in the future.

SACAT, under the bill, will have power to make an order terminating the residential tenancy, and substitute a new tenancy agreement. SACAT will also have power to make an order that one of the co-tenants must pay compensation to the landlord. The government says that SACAT's powers in relation to the bond are designed to 'provide a balance between the victim's interest in the bond, if any, and the landlord's right to compensation out of the bond'.

As is customary for the Liberal Party, when the legislation was introduced we sent it out to any number of stakeholders seeking feedback as to whether or not there was support for the legislation or whether, indeed, any questions needed to be asked during the debate of the bill. Broadly, the Liberal Party has received general support from stakeholders for the legislation, but a number have raised some issues, both with us and publicly, which we will place on the record at the second reading stage and pursue at the committee stage. Shelter SA wrote to the Liberal Party indicating as follows:

Domestic violence is the leading cause of homelessness in Australia and approximately 40 per cent of people receiving specialist homelessness services are children under the age of 18 years. Shelter SA welcomes all initiatives that aim to reduce the harm caused to women and children through domestic violence, including implementing changes to residential tenancy laws and we commend minister Gago for her work on the reforms to date.

Shelter SA then goes on to raise some broader issues of concern in relation to government policy and domestic violence. I do not propose to read all of those onto the public record, but I should say that this letter is signed by Dr Alice Clark as the Executive Director of Shelter SA, and I will put on the record the final paragraph from Dr Clark:

If the state government is serious about addressing domestic violence, there is much more to be done. Shelter SA would like to see a range of evidence-based initiatives funded and implemented that include education for our children around communication, problem-solving and conflict resolution, community education that addresses gender inequality and violence, and financial assistance for victims of domestic violence. Most importantly, governments and communities need to work together to increase the supply of social and affordable housing to make it easier for people to maintain their tenancies and, if needed, find alternative accommodation in a crisis. Our domestic violence sector also requires long-term ongoing funding so that they can attend to preventative services.

It is fair to say that Shelter SA are supportive of the legislation but are taking the opportunity to indicate that, whilst this measure is supported, they believe there is much more that could and should be done by the state government on this issue.

The Real Estate Institute of South Australia did a number of interviews publicly, one of which I will refer to which aired on 30 July this year on ABC radio with Ian Henschke, who was the host, and Mr Greg Troughton, who was representing the Real Estate Institute. Mr Henschke's question to Mr Troughton was:

Okay, so what would be the proof that there is domestic violence there? Because I imagine if you're a landlord listening to this you're saying…I might end up having to carry the cost of this, I'd at least like to know that it's really happening…that it couldn't be just an excuse to get out of a lease.

Sorry, that question was put to Fiona Mort from the Office for Women. Ms Mort said:

…we don't want that to happen, we're aware of that concern…the proof will be either having an intervention order. Currently police can issue them or the court can issue them or having evidence from a domestic violence service.

Henschke then puts the question:

Okay, well let's put this to Greg Troughton now from the Real Estate Institute…do you think landlords would be happy with this? I suppose it's something they just will have to carry.

Troughton responds:

…let me talk about [the Real Estate Institute's] position on this. Obviously we'd be very concerned about anyone being compelled to stay in an untenable situation, so let me say that first off, but what we are very concerned about and wouldn't support is any reform that sort of shifts this social burden and responsibility to the landlord…our concern is that, yes this is a very real issue, it's a very serious issue and it needs some serious consideration, but shifting it on to the landlord and let me just say…80 per cent of our landlords have less than one property and earn less than $80,000 a year, so this will have a real financial impact if we're not careful and it's not structured appropriately …it's really important that the landlord is looked after through this process because this is a social issue that is a government issue and shouldn't rest on the mum and dad investors out there at the moment.

Then there are further quotes from Ms Mort and Mr Troughton, but essentially they are making similar points. The questions to which I will be seeking a response from the minister are: what was the degree of engagement between the government and the Real Estate Institute, and did the government ultimately receive a submission from the Real Estate Institute indicating that they were happy with the assurances that have been given by the government in the bill and the protections on behalf of the landlords that Mr Troughton was publicly raising in that interview with Mr Ian Henschke?

Finally, I turn to quite a detailed submission from the Landlords' Association of South Australia, which is a 10-page submission submitted to the government and to the opposition. In addressing this, I want to indicate that this is one of the reasons that debate on the bill had been delayed for a small number of days in the Legislative Council. If I can just outline the process, I met with the Landlords' Association two or three weeks ago in relation to these 10 pages of concerns they had with the legislation. I hasten to say that their submission, as with the Real Estate Institute, did start off with this sentence:

The Landlords' Association (S.A.) Inc…fully supports measures that alleviate the impact of domestic violence so is broadly supportive of the measures contained in this bill.

I want to place on the record that the Landlords' Association commenced their 10-page submission with that, and the Real Estate Institute indicated as well that they were broadly supportive. Nevertheless, the Landlords' Association then went on to raise 10 pages of questions and issues with the detail of the legislation.

I took up these concerns up with the government representatives two or three weeks ago, and then my office had contact with the Landlords' Association. They indicated that they were going to meet, I think, early last week with the government and that they would contact us soon after that meeting with a further submission as to what their remaining concerns, if any, might be.

After that meeting on Monday, my office had contact with the Landlords' Association who indicated that, in the next couple of days, they would provide a written submission of their continuing concerns from the original 10 pages of concerns. We contacted the Landlords' Association again, and they indicated they would have their further submission to us by Thursday or Friday last week, but we did not receive it.

We contacted them again on Monday, and they indicated that we would get a submission on Monday or Tuesday of this week. As I said, it was only yesterday when I got a text message from my office at 11:10 which indicated there had been a telephone conversation with the Landlords' Association which indicated that we would not be getting a further written submission, with words to the effect that the government amendments resolved most if not all the issues that the Landlords' Association had raised.

Having looked at the government amendments, I am not sure how some of the questions raised by the Landlords' Association in their 10-page submission are addressed by the amendments; they are clearly not. But it may well be that, having had the discussion, they are no longer concerned about other aspects of their original 10-page submission. I give that detailed background about discussions with the Landlords' Association to indicate the reason I had originally intended speaking on behalf of Liberal members on Tuesday of this week but continued to await the further submission from the Landlords' Association, which, as I said, ultimately did not arrive. We had the telephone advice yesterday at about 11 o'clock, indicating that there would not be a further written submission.

So I have therefore very quickly today gone back through the original 10-page submission of the Landlords' Association and will place on the record some questions (some of which I think are not actually addressed by the government amendments) and seek the government's response in its response to the second reading or during the debate in the second reading. I hasten to say that these are questions that the Landlords' Association raised originally in the second reading. They are not issues that the Liberal party room has even debated in detail, and we do not indicate a position on those, other than we were interested to know what the government's response was to the Landlords' Association when these issues were raised.

On page 4 of the Landlords' Association submission they raise a question in relation to the definition of 'co-tenant'. They ask the government whether this includes subtenants, and that this needs to be clarified and noted in the bill. Certainly on my reading, I suspect the answer to that is probably no, that it does not, but I seek clarification of what the government's advice was. On page 5 of their submission, the Landlords' Association raised the following point:

If the Tribunal—

That is, SACAT—

releases part of the bond to the tenant, the landlord's position is compromised. Section 89A(4)(a) should be amended to include 'under such terms and conditions as the Tribunal sees fit' so that a remaining tenant would have to reinstate the original bond if it is agreed by all that the tenancy be reinstated. So, if the landlord does not agree to reinstate the tenancy and the Tribunal orders possession on a given date, the original bond should stand until the date of possession.

Further on page 5, the Landlords' Association argues:

Given that domestic violence is a community problem, and the government wants to break the contract between a landlord and tenant, and given that the landlord is completely innocent in such a matter, the government should be responsible for any losses and compensation to the landlord.

I assume that the government's response to that was that it does not agree, but I nevertheless seek confirmation of what the government's response was.

Further on page 5, the Landlords' Association raises the issue of whether or not the government has actually considered that one of the possible impacts of the legislation might be that some landlords might favour tenants who are not in relationships. They argue that this might have an adverse effect on what the government is actually trying to achieve and that the government needs to be careful because every action causes a reaction. My question to the government is: what was the government's response when the Landlords' Association put that particular view to it? Further on page 5, the association asks:

How will SACAT ensure that landlords are reimbursed in a timely manner, what is the process for reimbursement and who does the follow up? If tenants (abusers) refuse to pay up what are the penalties and how will this be enforced?

On page 6 of the submission there was a similar question under the broad heading of 'Bond and compensation':

What if the responsible co-tenant/s abandons a premises almost immediately and the remaining bond does not cover the damages. The total bond should not be released until the landlord has been compensated. In the meantime, the co-tenant/s not responsible for the damage may apply for a Housing SA guarantee.

This is a further quote:

Most landlord insurance policies with tenant damage cover reduce the payment of a claim by the total amount of the bond. Also when a claim is made, the landlord will be required to pay an increase in the policy renewal premium the following year.

Again, I seek the government's response as to how it responded to the Landlords' Association's point there. On page 10 of the submission, under the heading of 'How will the bond be refunded?', the Landlords' Association again argues—and I think this is a similar point to their earlier argument:

The total bond should not be released until the landlord has been fully compensated. In the meantime, the co-tenant/s not responsible may apply for a Housing SA guarantee.

I seek from the minister, in the response to the second reading, what the government's response to the Landlords' Association was in relation to that specific issue.

We have received this week further amendments from the government to the legislation. These amendments are dated 18 September and certainly they have not been considered by our party room, so I would appreciate it if the minister could broadly outline the purpose of the government amendments and the reasons why the government is moving the two amendments filed on 18 September to both clause 7 and clause 9 of the bill.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN (16:10): I rise to support the second reading of the Residential Tenancies (Domestic Violence Protections) Amendment Bill 2015. This bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 to provide some practical assistance and to strengthen the level of protection afforded to victims of domestic violence in the tenancy sector.

It is fortuitous, as pointed out by the Hon. Rob Lucas, that in proceeding on this bill in the chamber today the federal Minister for Women, Michaelia Cash, has announced a $100 million women's safety package aimed at combatting domestic violence. This will, I believe, make a real difference to removing the blight of domestic violence in our community. Like the Hon. Mr Lucas, I acknowledge the considerable efforts of the former prime minister, the Hon. Tony Abbott. Indeed, the announcement today has clearly been the result of much of his work.

Sadly, Australian women are most likely to experience physical and sexual violence in their home and at the hand of a male (current or ex) partner. Recent statistics tell us that on average one woman is killed every week as a result of domestic violence and that one woman is hospitalised every three hours. In this year alone, 63 women have died as a result of domestic violence attacks. There is a clear need to continue to improve our community efforts, both to prevent violence from happening in the first place but also to provide the necessary services for women experiencing domestic violence and for those who are trying to escape it.

The decision to stay or leave an abusive relationship, unfortunately for many women, can be affected by financial factors. This was explored in the paper, 'Seeking Security: promoting women's economic wellbeing following domestic violence', by Rochelle Braaf and Isobelle Meyering in May 2011. As a community, we need to ensure that if and when those impacted reach out we are there, ready and willing, to render assistance. Those in an abusive relationship need to know there is no reason to stay and every reason to escape and pursue a happy and fulfilling life away from violence.

I now turn to the bill before the chamber. Currently, a tenant or landlord can apply to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) to terminate a residential tenancy based on hardship. When considering these applications, SACAT can consider special circumstances that might result in undue hardship to the tenant or the landlord. A flaw in the current system, however, is that SACAT's power is limited in cases where the tenant making an application is a co-tenant with a person who is being violent towards them.

Where a co-tenancy agreement exists, SACAT cannot terminate the tenancy unless the other tenant joins the application; indicates no opposition to it; or SACAT is satisfied that the other tenant has abandoned the residential tenancy. Therefore, SACAT cannot terminate a tenancy for persons who would have otherwise met the hardship threshold test if they are a co-tenant and one of these other pre-conditions is not met.

Clearly, this is not practical in situations where domestic violence is the reason a co-tenant makes an application in the first place. The bill permits the termination of a residential tenancy or rooming house agreement where the SACAT is satisfied that domestic abuse has occurred or there is an intervention order in force against a person residing at the premises.

The bill also makes amendments giving SACAT the power to find that one or more but not all co-tenants are responsible to make payment to the landlord either by way of compensation or out of the bond for property damage. Although SACAT currently has the power to make an order for compensation, it does not have the power to order that only one tenant in a co-tenancy is liable to make the payment. This means that in situations of domestic violence the victim is required to pay for any property damage that is caused by their co-tenant who was the perpetrator of the damage. Worse still, it can also lead to the victim being placed on a residential tenancy database, linking them with the property damage not of their making.

Under the amendments, SACAT can direct the bond be paid in instalments as it thinks fit, considering which co-tenants were liable, which co-tenants paid the bond and in what proportions. SACAT can also prohibit a tenant's personal information being listed on the residential tenancy databases in certain circumstances relating to domestic violence. These amendments attempt to balance the landlord's right to compensation with the victim's interest in the bond moneys.

Under the amendments, a tenant can apply for a restraining order against a co-tenant when there is a risk that they or a person permitted on the premises by the tenant may cause serious property damage or personal injury. These restraining orders prohibit them from engaging in certain types of conduct. Without these amendments, it is not clear if a co-tenant had the standing to make such applications against their co-tenant.

The bill also adopts existing definitions under the Intervention Orders Act recognising that domestic violence can include a wide variety of behaviour between family members. This bill aims to complement the intervention order regime by ensuring that victims do not incur further expenses or hardship associated with relocating or are able to remain in their homes when it is safe to do so.

We must do all that we possibly can to ensure that those victims who find the courage and strength to end an abusive relationship have the tools to equip themselves to find a safe location and with as little financial stress as possible. The recent launch of the Zahra Abrahimzadeh Foundation, which will offer grants to women to help cover the financial costs of escaping their violent partners and rebuilding their lives, is a wonderful example of how the community can become involved and help provide practical assistance to the countless victims within our community.

Recently, I was honoured to become a White Ribbon ambassador, and I am encouraged to see that many of my colleagues and other members in this place are also ambassadors. I have also been encouraged to see the White Ribbon campaign gaining publicity and increasing awareness in the community of this widespread affliction. While as a community I believe we have made considerable progress, there is much more to be done. I look forward to the committee stage and the government's response to the matters raised by the Hon. Mr Lucas.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:18): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this bill. I will be brief because I think the parliament is probably in furious agreement in support of this piece of legislation. One of the things that I am sometimes asked as shadow minister for the status of women in relation to domestic violence is how do we 'fix it', and my response to that is that many responses are required. Clearly, changes in attitudes are required, and the new Prime Minister certainly made those strong comments today, but there are a number of other measures that can be taken.

I see this as a very practical means of assisting people who are in situations where they are co-tenants. As we know, people who are the perpetrators of domestic violence are often incredibly manipulative. Sometimes they are quite clever at being manipulative and can convince other people outside of the relationship of their good intent. These measures will assist those people who are in a domestic violence situation to break those tenancy agreements.

I note some of the amendments address the issue of the damage to property, where the victim is often, under the current circumstances, required to pay for the damage to the property. Clearly, we do need to assist victims who are fleeing their situations. The current arrangements do not assist in that, which I think most people would agree needs to be changed. With those remarks, I commend the second reading to the house and look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:20): I thank honourable members for their second reading contributions and their overwhelming support for this important piece of legislation. The bill aims to update our tenancy legislation to address domestic violence and provide protections for victims in the tenancy sector. As a state, we cannot stand by and allow domestic violence to continue. We must tackle this issue on every front and every level that we possibly can.

The protections this bill is seeking to provide to victims of domestic violence have been balanced to preserve the current protections that exist for landlords. This approach supports what domestic violence service providers have told me, which is that, first and foremost, victims want out of the property, or the perpetrator out. Victims do not want to be tied to the perpetrator through obligations under the tenancy agreement. They want any necessary compensation claims finalised and not have any reason for the perpetrator to have ongoing contact with them.

I would like now to take this opportunity to clarify something that has been raised by stakeholders, that is, that the landlord will retain their existing rights to claim for compensation out of the bond. A claim, for example, may be to cover costs from damage or early termination of tenancy. Any order SACAT makes under these proposed changes is to be consistent with the way compensation for a landlord is currently assessed and dealt with under the act.

The government has filed an amendment that clearly sets out that intention. The amendments do not change the substance of the original bill. It was simply raised with us that it could be ambiguous. Our advice was that the former wording was not ambiguous, but nevertheless, in the spirit of cooperation we made those amendments to clarify the intention of the bill.

Once compensation, if any, is determined, SACAT will make an order for the remaining bond money—the whole amount or just a portion of the bond—to be paid out to one or more of the tenants. Where compensation exceeds the bond amount, the landlord will be entitled to the full bond. SACAT can require any compensation above the bond to be paid by one or more of the tenants, and in making this determination will give consideration to the tenant who might be liable. Victims should not be penalised further for damage they did not cause.

The Hon. Kelly Vincent asked some questions during her second reading—and I will seek to address those—with respect to what redress available homeowners have for loss. As I have already outlined, a landlord will retain their existing rights to claim for compensation out of the bond. A compensation claim can include costs associated with early termination of tenancy. Any order SACAT makes under these proposed changes is to be consistent with the way compensation for a landlord is currently assessed and dealt with under the act. The landlord also remains entitled to claim for compensation exceeding the bond.

Regarding the question about the time taken to make a decision, I am advised that this will be treated in a similar way as applications under the hardship provisions are dealt with, and I am further advised that this generally takes two weeks. However, in critical situations, the matter may be dealt with within three days. These proposed changes aim to provide an avenue for victims to terminate their liability under the tenancy agreement and end dealings with the perpetrator in relation to the tenancy in future.

I am advised that these dealings are often used by perpetrators to abuse their victims and prevent victims from re-establishing their lives free from violence. Victims of abuse are strongly encouraged to seek advice on applying for an interim intervention order to ensure their safety. Information will also be provided to victims about specialist domestic violence services who are skilled in assessing and managing risk of further violence.

In response to the question asked about what information and support will be available to help people understand the tribunal process, I am advised that once the bill has passed Consumer and Business Services, in conjunction with the Office for Women, will prepare educational material in consultation with stakeholders to ensure that the tenancy sector and victims of abuse are aware of their rights.

I am further advised that SACAT currently has an assistance program, where a person can request that the tribunal make special arrangements to account for physical, mental, cultural or language barriers a person may have. These details can be included in a person's application or they may speak to a SACAT community access officer on a 1800 number. The tribunal may also conduct hearings by telephone or video link. Applications can be lodged in person at the tribunal, online or over the phone. The tribunal also provides advice on lodging applications to service providers who may assist a person with applying.

In relation to some of the questions the Hon. Rob Lucas has put on the record, the definition of a service provider I am advised may include non-government organisations, such as a central domestic violence service or victim support services or practitioners, such as general practitioners, psychologists or social workers from government departments. In relation to questions about REISA's engagement, I have met with REISA. They did not provide a written submission. They did provide feedback about their concerns about the impact on landlords. That has been addressed and it was mainly in relation to those concerns that these government amendments were lodged.

The Landlords' Association has indicated to my office that it is comfortable with the bill and its amendments. I met with the Landlords' Association and was able to clarify a number of matters they had misunderstood in the bill. For instance, they had understood that the current bond arrangements would be altered by this bill. Once we went through that, and assured them that they were not, they were satisfied. That was the main concern they had.

In relation to the submission of the Landlords' Association, unfortunately I received it only very recently; apparently, they had furnished it to the opposition without affording the government that courtesy. In fact, they fronted up to the meeting referring to their submission which we had no knowledge of and was not in receipt of. However, we have addressed that and addressed all their concerns. With those few words, I hope that this is dealt with expeditiously through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.