Bills

Housing Improvement Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 26 July 2016.)

Clause 11.

The CHAIR: Following on from yesterday, we are up to clause 11, and we have two amendments that have been moved, one from the minister and one from the Hon. Ms Lee. Minister.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: After a lot of incredible work last night I can report to the chamber that we have peace in our time. Due to the great efforts of the Hon. Jing Lee, ministerial adviser Mr Jeremy Makin, departmental advisers Mr Paul Reardon, Julia Mangan and Linley May, we have come to a compromise position which I think we can all agree on. Just to advise the chamber what that will look like we will go through the motions now.

We are resuming debate at clause 11. I think amendment No. 1 has been accepted already. The government intends to withdraw amendments Nos 2 to 6, based on an agreed revision of amendment No. 2 to be filed by the Hon. Jing Lee, which I think has happened, and then we will move on to further amendments after that.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Thank you to the minister for his very wise cooperation and also the ministerial staffers for working closely with me on these issues. For now we are dealing with the set of amendments [Lee–3] of today, 27 July, under my name. Amendment No. 1 is a technical amendment.

The CHAIR: That has already been done.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Yes, done. The second amendment that we are now dealing with relates to clause 11(1)(a). Under the current legislation a government employee will be able to turn up at a private home unannounced and use reasonable force to enter that home if they suspect a dangerous situation. In order to give some protection to owner-occupiers we feel that this not giving of notice amounts to a massive infringement on the rights of the home owners and a breach of privacy if there is no requirement to give any form of notice of an inspection. Therefore this amendment reads as to enter the premises for the purpose of carrying out an inspection of the premises provided that if the authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds that the premises pose or may pose an imminent risk of death or serious injury or illness—

The CHAIR: Can you seek leave to withdraw your current amendment—clause 11 amendment No. 2 [Lee-2], the one you moved yesterday.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I seek leave to withdraw amendment No. 2 [Lee–2].

Leave granted.

The CHAIR: Minister, do you want to withdraw yours as well?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Yes, Mr Chairman, and thank you for that guidance. The government seeks leave to withdraw amendments Nos 2 to 6.

Leave granted.

The CHAIR: Hon. Ms Lee, you can now move your new amendment No. 2.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Lee–3]—

Page 10, line 27 [clause 11(1)(a)]—Delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) enter the premises for the purposes of carrying out an inspection of the premises, provided that—

(i) if the authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds that the premises pose or may pose an imminent risk of death or serious injury or illness to occupiers of the premises—the owner or occupier is notified prior to the proposed entry; or

(ii) in any other case—at least 5 working days notice is given to the owner or occupier of the proposed entry (or such shorter period as may be requested or consented to by the owner or occupier);

As indicated before, the reason for moving this amendment is to allow owner-occupiers to receive notification to enter the premises, as a courtesy, as well as allowing the owners, just in case there are pets in the house and there are other things and children who need to be taken care of, to do something about it prior to an officer entering the premises. Also, we believe that in any other cases when there is no imminent risk, five working days should be allowed so that owner-occupiers can apply for leave to their work and have plenty of time to organise things prior to an officer entering the home.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We congratulate, again, the Hon. Jing Lee on this very sensible compromise position. We will be supporting this amendment. This amendment recognises the circumstances where there is a risk of serious injury or death which will require immediate action. We are grateful for that position, but then, in the other situations, we recognise also that five days is reasonable notice when there is no urgent need. On that basis, we are happy to support the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Whilst I appreciate the congratulations and thanks all around, those of us on the crossbench who were not party to these negotiations do need to satisfy ourselves in relation to the agreement that was reached. I will address my questions to the minister, I think, rather than to the mover.

The question before us was: how much notice must be given? The starting point, I think, is that, in relation to residential premises, notice is not usually a problem because it is most likely the tenant who is complaining about the condition of premises, and they are going to welcome an officer coming to visit and to check out the problem. The notice period is more likely to be a live issue in relation to owner-occupied dwellings.

The compromise amendment that seems to have been reached here is a two-standard process. The default position of notice is five working days. The discussion that we left it at yesterday was whether it was going to be a prescribed period or a reasonable period of notice. We have now got five days, but the exception to that general rule is where the authorised officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the premises pose, or may pose, an imminent risk of death or serious injury or illness to occupiers of the premises.

What I would like the minister to do is to explain a little more, if he can, that test, because it seems to me a very high bar: imminent risk of death. When I had my briefing with departmental officers, they referred, for example, to a chimney that might topple over and might injure someone, or might fall onto a public place, or might fall onto an adjoining property. What I am not sure about is: I wonder how often that threshold will be met, where premises pose an imminent risk of death or serious injury? It would seem to me that, whether you have a wall or a chimney or something that may fail at some point—in fact, it probably will fail at some point—it is unstable, it is going to fall, whether it falls will depend on the weather. For example, does the wind blow the wall over or blow the chimney over? How does the minister expect that test will be interpreted: imminent risk of death or serious injury?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the honourable member for his question, teasing these things out. My advice is that most often the person residing in the premises has initiated the complaint and would be welcoming of quick action. However, we believe that the words do give us the ability to act because the officer—who will be trained in these things—will have to form a reasonable view, or a view on reasonable grounds, that the premises may pose an imminent risk, not just of death but, if you read on, serious injury or indeed illness. So, for example, the chimney that the honourable member mentions, which was mentioned to him, and there could be other situations you could think of—for example, load-bearing joists that have been eaten out by termites and could collapse; supporting beams; verandas—which do offer some imminent risk of death or serious injury in the view of a trained officer who would form an opinion based on those reasonable grounds.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will just keep going on that line, if I can. I thank the minister for his answer. Just to make it clear, the time period in this situation, where the authorised officer believes that the premises pose or may pose an imminent risk of death or serious injury, the notice period basically is any period. In other words, the notice period is that the owner or occupier is notified prior to the proposed entry.

Is there no scope for an authorised officer to enter and inspect premises, even if the premises do pose an imminent risk of death, if no-one is home to talk to, there is no way that the authorised officer can undertake an inspection, if that inspection involves entry on to the premises? Can I get the minister to clarify that there is no capacity for any authorised officer to attend without having given at least some notice to an owner or occupier?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that if you read further on into the bill, page 11, clause 11(3) under Powers of authorised officers. This clause does allow an authorised officer to use reasonable force to enter any residential premises for

(a) on the authority of a warrant issued by a magistrate; or

(b) if the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the circumstances require immediate action to be taken.

There is another opportunity for immediate action, where you do not need to supply notice.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: For the sake of clarity, could I seek from the minister some definition of 'serious injury' for the record. At what point does a person cross the threshold from injury to serious injury?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that it is impossible for us as legislators to predict every set of circumstances and allow for it in legislation like this. This is why we leave these judgements up to that of a trained officer, to make a decision based on their experience, based on their training and based on past legal precedent too about the definition of such things. They would have training in that area and make a judgement based on that experience.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am not going to press this point too far but I will just make the point that often when these things are done on the run there are unintended consequences. The amendment that we are about to pass relates to the threshold question of whether a person is allowed to enter premises. The subsection that the minister just referred to is in relation to the manner of entry, being a forced entry. It strikes me that these two things together mean that, unless somebody is home, the authorised officer cannot just break down the door, regardless of whatever suspicion they form, because the threshold question of their entitlement to entry is not met, therefore the question of the manner of entry, either by invitation or by force, does not arise.

I am not going to make a big deal of it. I do not think it will arise in very many circumstances. I just make the point that, whilst I appreciate that members have got their heads together to try to work out a solution, I do not think they have got it quite right. I do not think any great harm is done by it, so the Greens will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I take the points and the concern that the honourable member raises but my advice is that notice could be a knock on the door and a conversation or a letter in the letterbox. I am sure there is past precedent on this. Notwithstanding that, we are reasonably confident, on my advice, that should there be an imminent risk there would be the ability for an officer to make entry.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I would like to take the opportunity to commend the Hon. Ms Lee in this situation. She presented the amendment some time ago on this legislation and she has stuck firmly to her guns and been resolute in her commitment to achieving a change in this bill, which I think is not probably exactly what she wanted, but nonetheless it is probably 80 per cent there and I think it is an example of some good work having been done. We had intended to support the amendment in its original form. I indicate that we will be supporting it in its new form.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Again, just for the sake of clarity, members will recall that Dignity for Disability was not inclined to support the previous Liberal amendment because we were concerned that safety officers may not be given enough flexibility to intervene where a house could potentially impose on the safety and wellbeing of the residents in other houses around that house. Because we did appreciate the intent of the original amendment, we are happy to see that a compromise has been reached. We congratulate Ms Lee and the opposition on that, and we are happy to proceed with the newly proposed amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Lee–3]—

Page 11, after line 5—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) An authorised officer's powers under subsection (1) are qualified as follows:

(a) the authorised officer must not exercise the power of entry in relation to residential premises unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the premises—

(i) are or may be unsafe or unsuitable for human habitation; or

(ii) are occupied under a residential tenancy agreement;

(b) if, after entering residential premises, the authorised officer forms the view that the premises are not unsafe or unsuitable for human habitation, the officer must leave the premises immediately.

Initially, the legislation did not provide any reasonable grounds for any officers to actually enter the premises. We argue that instead of it being like a witch-hunt, issuing any orders for any officers to enter premises, we need reasonable grounds to be prescribed under the act.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This is virtually the same as amendment No. 3 [Lee–2], so in that case we support the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens will support this amendment. I appreciate that the power of authorised officers needs to be exercised at least in accordance with some notion that there is something to be found, rather than just entering premises for the sake of it. I think this does make sense. I think also it is probably fair to say that we are talking about, effectively, a complaint-driven regime, and so the authorised officers' reasonable grounds would come from the fact that someone has complained, whether it be a neighbour or, in most cases, a tenant.

It does make sense to limit their ability to willy-nilly enter any premises just to see if there is something wrong. They have to at least have a starting position that someone has complained. Also, the authorised officer could form a view from the exterior of the property. You could see from the street that it looks like something where someone should go and have a look inside to see what is wrong, but it cannot be just an arbitrary attendance at the premises, so I think this amendment makes sense.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Lee–3]—

Page 11, lines 29 to 41 (inclusive) [clause 11(7) and (8)]—Delete subsections (7) and (8) and substitute:

(7) Despite any preceding provision of this section, a person is excused from answering a question or providing information or a document under this section on the ground that the answer to the question, or the information or document, may tend to incriminate that person or expose that person to a penalty.

This provision was discussed with the Hon. John Darley and to some extent with the Hon. Dennis Hood as well. I thank both members for their contribution. This is an area where incrimination of the person exposes them to penalties, so we feel that that ought to be included as a form of protection. The Hon. John Darley particularly wanted this to be included.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We are happy to support this amendment, because in our eyes the condition of housing is something that can be visually inspected and does not require any intensive interrogation or provision of documentation.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens will also support this amendment. Again, like the minister, I am trying to work out in what circumstances self-incrimination might be involved. The only example I can think of is that an authorised officer might want to ask whether certain extensions to the home or certain home improvements have actually been properly authorised through a development approval or a building consent through the local council.

Of course, building without consent is an offence. Therefore, when faced with shoddy work, whilst the authorised officer might want to ask whether an approval was granted, the person is not obliged to answer. Again, the information could easily be obtained from the council by inspecting their records, so I do not think this will have a lot of work to do, but the principle against self-incrimination is important and it makes sense to incorporate it into this bill.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 11A.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Lee–3]—

Page 11, after line 41—After clause 11 insert:

11A—Offences by authorised officers etc

An authorised officer, or a person assisting an authorised officer, who—

(a) addresses offensive language to any other person; or

(b) without lawful authority, hinders or obstructs or uses or threatens to use force in relation to any other person,

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

The new clause is being included after discussion with the Hon. John Darley. We feel that an authorised officer must not, while acting in the duty of entering the premises, use any form of offensive language or abuse their power in such a way. If it is found that the authorised officer is in breach of those provisions, then they will be guilty of an offence. It is just a preventative measure in order to protect owner-occupiers.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government supports the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens also support the amendment. There should be no circumstances in which authorised officers using offensive language is called for. Similarly, it is hard to imagine circumstances where using force against a person is called for, although I do note, as has been pointed out before, that authorised officers do have the power to break in.

You might get a situation where someone puts their body in between the authorised officer and the door, and that might raise interesting questions about the level of appropriate force that can be used. But, again, I would like to think that this clause will have absolutely no work to do, because the authorised officers will be so well trained and so professional that their behaviour is never called into doubt.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Just to assist the council, I hope it would be obvious that Dignity for Disability would support this amendment. Again, I hope it will not be necessary for it to actually be enforced but, if having it there gives people peace of mind, then we are happy to support it.

New clause inserted.

Clause 12.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I propose to withdraw amendments [Lee-3] 6 to 11. However, I would like to ask a question to give us all peace of mind. Can the minister give some examples of circumstances where a minister may actually revoke or vary a housing improvement order or housing assessment order?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the Hon. Jing Lee for withdrawing the amendments and asking: when may the minister revoke an order? My advice is, when the order has been complied with—i.e., repairs have been completed—or if the minister receives further and better information, such as an engineer's report, then an order may be revoked regarding, say, a structural integrity issue. If SACAT orders a revocation, then the particular order would be revoked, for example. There may be a class of orders, I am advised, of a similar issue to the SACAT ruling. In that case, other orders might also fall into the scope of revocation, but they are the general categories.

Clause passed.

Clauses 13 to 58 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Parnell–1]—

Page 37, lines 33 to 38 [Schedule 1, Part 2, clause 8]—Delete clause 8 and substitute:

8—Repeal of section 60

Section 60—delete the section

I will speak now to amendment Nos 3 and 4. I know that they will be moved separately, but I want to speak to them together because they both relate effectively to the same issue, and that is the issue I have raised in this place in the past, and I fully expect I will raise it again in the future, unless of course we fix it today, in which case I will be a very happy person.

The issue relates to tenancy agreements, whether under the Residential Parks Act, which is my amendment No. 3, or the Residential Tenancies Act, which is my amendment No. 4. The question is: in what circumstances ought a landlord be able to end the tenancy agreement? As members would be aware, under both those pieces of legislation there are a range of grounds set out that are regarded as legitimate grounds for ending a tenancy agreement, and we are fairly familiar with what they are.

They are things like the owner wanting to sell and needing to sell with vacant possession—you end the tenancy agreement. The owner might want to conduct substantial renovations that require the property to be empty—a valid reason. The owner might want to move back into the property themselves—a valid reason. The owner might have a family member who wants to move back into the property—a valid reason. The tenant might have caused damage—again, another valid reason for ending a tenancy agreement. The tenant might not have been paying their rent or might have been in some other breach of the residential tenancy agreement or the residential parks agreement—again, valid reasons for ending a tenancy.

However, when there is no valid reason, when the landlord can find no particular identifiable valid reason to end a tenancy agreement, we have these remarkable provisions in these two pieces of legislation where, without any reason being given, the landlord can simply give three months' notice and that is the end of the matter, the tenancy agreement is over. This provision is being dismantled in other jurisdictions, and I think it is time that we dismantled it in South Australia.

I want to take a few minutes to read onto the record, in relation to both these amendments, an open letter that was written by Shelter SA to members of parliament basically urging MPs to support what is effectively my amendment No. 4, but the arguments are the same for amendment No. 3, that is, the repeal of the 'no cause eviction' clauses in this legislation. I want to put it on the record because they have gone to the trouble of writing this letter and securing some important signatories to this letter, and I want to put those names on the record as well.

Whilst the letter that I will read shortly talks about Shelter SA's position, I am pleased to advise that it has also been endorsed by the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia and the Tenants' Union of New South Wales. I just pause there to say: would it not be great if we had a proper tenants' union here in South Australia. Most other states have them; it is something we should work towards.

Another peak body supporting this approach is Anti-Poverty Network South Australia. A number of other organisations supporting this approach are the St John's Youth Service, the Women's Community Centre, the Salvation Army—Towards Independence Network of Services, and UnitingCare Wesley Bowden. These peak bodies and organisations have all signed on to the Shelter SA Open Letter to all Members of SA Parliament. The letter states:

It is time to remove Section 83 'no cause evictions' from the Residential Tenancies Act.

Shelter SA is the peak body for housing in South Australia. Our vision is for every South Australian to have an affordable, safe place to call home. We advocate for improved policies and systems for all citizens, particularly those that affect people living on low incomes. We are writing to you to urge you to support Mark Parnell's amendment to the Housing Improvement Bill to repeal Section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act—the right for a landlord to evict a tenant without cause. Mark's previous speech about Section 83 is attached as Appendix 1.

For the record, that was about three years ago. The letter goes on:

It is Shelter SA's position that the no cause eviction voids the rights and responsibilities outlined in the Residential Tenancies Act…The Act outlines in detail the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, as well as procedures and standard terms of residential tenancy agreements.

Residential tenancy agreements serve as a contract between landlords and tenants. The no cause eviction renders that contract useless, as the landlord can exit the agreement without giving reason.

The profile of private renting has evolved since the Act came into effect in 1995. In the past, private rental was a transient option. However, long-term renters are becoming increasingly common. Today, more than one in four households in South Australia rent, and the number continues to steadily grow. The cost of home ownership is rapidly becoming unaffordable. The Act must reflect these changes to housing affordability in South Australia. Currently, Section 83 of the act provides landlords with the power to evict tenants without giving a reason. The no cause eviction disrupts security of tenure, renders the rights outlined in the Act useless, is unnecessary and ignores interstate and international best practice. A better balance of landlord and tenant rights is possible and will not decrease interest in the housing market, as suggested by some of our parliamentarians the last time the Act was discussed.

Security of tenure is an assurance that, if a tenant complies with their rental agreement they have a legal right to rent the property for as long as they wish. The Gratton Institute illustrates the impact of not having security of tenure by focusing on the lives of children. Without a stable location that is afforded through security of tenure, children can be forced from their friends, school and community, which has a negative impact on their development. A greater chance of eviction also means the family has a greater chance of facing homelessness, as finding an affordable new rental can be difficult in a competitive, expensive housing market. The no cause eviction destroys security of tenure and creates a living arrangement where eviction is an ever-present threat for tenants who comply with their lease agreements. The no-cause eviction is creating negative social and economic consequences for South Australian families.

National Shelter has previously stated concerns about no cause evictions and retaliatory evictions. A tenant is less likely to exercise their rights under the act if they fear a no cause eviction. Retaliatory evictions through the no cause eviction effectively limit or remove the right of tenants under the Act.

The no cause eviction is unnecessary. If a landlord is not satisfied with the behaviour or financial performance of a tenant, there are various avenues within Part 5 of the act that give power to the landlord to lawfully evict a tenant. The avenues to evict are exhaustive and capture any unsatisfactory tenant behaviour. The only reason a landlord would need to rely on the no cause eviction would be to evict a tenant who has performed reasonably and appropriately. Tenancy laws that allow for no cause evictions consequently allow for the evictions based on retaliation and discrimination.

One defence for the no cause eviction is that its removal from the Act will cause some landlords to disinvest in rental housing. Examples through Europe, where renting has become a common, long-term, accepted dwelling type, present an ethical balance of rights between landlords and tenants without affecting the market. Germany has a robust housing market that relies substantially on small-scale investment, however it has managed to provide ample security of tenure to renters. In Australia, the States are beginning to rescind the no cause evictions in their legislation. Tasmania has taken the first step, strictly limiting the circumstances in which a landlord can use the no cause eviction. There are international examples, and interstate leaders. South Australia must be next.

A fair system would involve listing all reasonable grounds for eviction in the legislation, as opposed to providing an open, 'catch all' provision through the no cause eviction. Such a system would allow landlords to evict tenants who do not comply with their lease agreement, but grant security of tenure to those who do. Law reform that provides reasonable grounds for termination would neither require nor entail a change to the structure of the rental market or the investment strategies of landlords.

For landlords that wish to repossess the house for their own or a family member's occupancy, or out of necessity, there must be checks and balances to ensure that the eviction is bona fide.

The system must change to ensure reasonable security of tenure to tenants. The Residential Tenancies Act must change to guarantee that evictions are only a last resort.

Shelter SA is currently gathering signatories to this letter in South Australia which will be published in future. We will look forward to your response and would be pleased to provide you with any further information you require.

Yours faithfully

Dr Alice Clark

Executive Director

Shelter SA

The South Australian peak body for housing

I thank the house for its indulgence in allowing me to put that on to the record. As I said, I expect I know where this amendment is going. I also note that the Residential Tenancies Act is on our Notice Paper for other purposes, so it may be we revisit this question sooner rather than later.

I just make the point that if a landlord has a valid reason to end a tenancy, then let them state that reason. The idea that on a whim, out of discrimination and out of retribution, they can simply provide three months' notice and get rid of a tenant who has perhaps sought to enforce their rights, is an outrageous principle. This bill is an excellent opportunity for us to delete both these clauses in the Residential Parks Act and in the Residential Tenancies Act, and I commend the amendments to members.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This bill, as it stands, does make consequential amendments to the Residential Parks Act 2007. Just to clarify, section 62 states that where a housing improvement order or notice applies to the property, a tenancy cannot be terminated without specifying the ground of termination, and so I can see the opening that the Hon. Mr Parnell has tried to drive his truck through in this regard. I say at the outset that the government will not be supporting either of his amendments, and I tempt him to reagitate this matter at another opportunity. I congratulate him on that, and I fully understand it, but the government's position is that this is the wrong place to do it.

We say that Mr Parnell's proposed amendments extend beyond the ambit of the Housing Improvement Act. At the very least, we would require extensive consultation with some key stakeholders. Of course, the government has to consider all of the impacts of proposed legislative change—and impacts that come up here in the form of amendments that would have ramifications for a range of stakeholders really need to be consulted on rather thoroughly. In this case, we think this would be one that would need to be consulted on thoroughly.

So I do I invite him to raise this matter again with the minister—he already has his eyes on another opportunity that is coming before us—but at this point in time the government will not be supporting either amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I was not proposing to divide, necessarily, but if the only contribution that is going to be made is from the government then I would be missing an opportunity, because the Liberals may well be keen to support it and my hands will be tied and I will have to call for a vote. So, I would not mind hearing any other contributions.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I think I am sympathetic to what the Hon. Mr Parnell is suggesting, but can I just ask for a point of clarification. It may be one that is already quite obvious and covered, but I would rather make sure. What would the impact be of this amendment in the case, for example, where a landlord has some medical issues, or goes through a divorce, or something that might have a severe impact on their life and might have to evict a tenant at quite short notice. Is the Hon. Mr Parnell of the view that they could easily state that and that would be covered, and the tenant would not have grounds for claiming discrimination, or is there a grey area there?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the honourable member for her question. It is an interesting one. There are hardship provisions that relate to people making applications to what used to be the residential tenancies tribunal, now SACAT (the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal), but I guess I would phrase the issue slightly differently. If someone is having serious personal issues and they are a landlord and they want to dispose of the property, if their issues mean that they need to get rid of the property—they do not want to own it anymore—then that is already covered. If there are issues in relation to their ability to manage the property, I guess there are other options. Most residential tenancies are managed by agents rather than individually by the landlords.

In the circumstances the honourable member raises, if the person is unable to manage the rental property themselves then usually that would be partnered with wanting to get rid of the property altogether, which is the situation that is already covered. Whatever issues they were facing, if they wanted to evict the tenant so they could get a more compliant tenant in, for example someone who did not insist on their rights, then that is exactly the sort of situation that I am trying to sort out here.

I appreciate the member's question. I do not think it is really a live issue because it would normally be partnered with another valid reason, and, at the end of the day, there is always the hardship provisions that could be relied on.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The Liberals indicate that we will not support Mr Parnell's amendment. We believe the rights of landlords need to be protected in some sense. I also believe that this is beyond the object of the Housing Improvement Bill that we are currently discussing. I agree with the minister that further consultation needs to be considered because we do not understand the full repercussions if this is agreed to today.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: We can see where the numbers are. This amendment will be defeated, obviously, but I just indicate to the chamber that Family First is not closed to supporting this particular amendment at some future time. I agree with the comments that have been made in general. I do not think this is the right bill for this amendment necessarily. We have another opportunity that has already been indicated on the Notice Paper where this might be further explored.

There are a number of things I could list off, but I will not detain the committee, because there are some legitimate questions about the amendment. That said, as I indicated, it is something we would not rule out supporting in the appropriate legislation, if you like, the appropriate bill. Before indicating support, though, I would, of course, want to consult with the Real Estate Institute and other bodies representing landlords in order to hear their perspective. I think the motivation for the amendment though is worthy and something that we should not rule out supporting in a more appropriate piece of legislation.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: All I really wanted to say was to thank the Hon. Mr Parnell for his points of clarification. I did suspect that I was correct in the kinds of situations I mentioned before that would be covered by things like the hardship clauses, but I just wanted to be absolutely clear. Given that we can easily see where the numbers lie, I will keep that information in mind and look forward to, hopefully, with the proper consultation and all of that pending, being able to support the amendment under another bill at a different time.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: I will put the next amendment. Do you want to put that separately or do you want to speak to it?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: For the record, I will move the amendment, but I am not going to speak to that separately. It is the same issue. I am happy to accept the result of the last amendment. I move:

Amendment No 4 [Parnell–1]—

Page 39, lines 17 to 22 [Schedule 1, Part 3, clause 16]—Delete clause 16 and substitute:

16—Repeal of section 83

Section 83—delete the section

Amendment negatived; schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (12:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.