Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 July 2016.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:27): I rise to speak on the Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. This bill proposes minor amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 and aims to clarify the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants. The contents within this bill are fairly simple and straightforward but also quite important. As noted, this bill addresses a number of ambiguities and deficiencies in the current act, specifically in relation to right of entry, termination of agreements and abandonment of property.

Tenants will benefit from this bill in a number of ways. As the Attorney-General explained in his contribution in the other place, the current situation is that landlords may only enter premises for the purposes of showing a property to prospective tenants within 28 days preceding termination of the tenancy; however, the bill proposes to provide tenants with the discretion to permit earlier entry, which certainly makes sense to us.

Supposedly, providing tenants with this discretion will offer a level of protection from intimidation and coercion and, again, we agree that is probably right, at some level. Tenants will also be given the opportunity to reclaim abandoned property under the bill and I understand that the Minister for Police will move an amendment in relation to this, which is likely to enjoy Family First support.

Ensuring that the Residential Tenancies Act is fair and equitable to both tenants and landlords is very important. My office is often contacted by constituents who are public and private tenants, landlords and property managers, seeking assistance with a variety of different issues. Drawing on their personal experiences with housing matters, many constituents that I have been in contact with hold an opinion on the balance of rights between the landlord and their tenants in the act, which is not surprising. I have certainly taken those concerns and comments into consideration while considering the bill and other bills relating to housing, including the recent Housing Improvement Bill.

Overall, in the view of Family First, this bill represents a sensible approach by the government to balance the rights and interests of the tenants and landlords and, therefore, we will support the second reading. There are a number of amendments. We look favourably on the government amendments. I note there is an amendment from the Hon. Mr Parnell. We have not had a chance to examine the specificity of that. He did mention in his second reading contribution that he was looking to amend the grounds on which landlords could deny tenancy. If that is the amendment that is being put to us then we will have a close look at the time.

I may have indicated in an earlier contribution on a different but related matter that we were favourable or at least open to that position. That remains our position. We are happy to hear the amendment explained by the Hon. Mr Parnell and then hear the various opinions within the house before making a final decision. I would say at this stage that we have had some representation from some of the real estate industry expressing concern on that particular amendment and we are mindful to hear their voice as the experts in the field. That said, the Hon. Mr Parnell should have an opportunity to put forward his amendment and make his case.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (16:31): I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. The Hon. Andrew McLachlan asked some questions during the debate and asked for an explanation of the proposed government amendment, which I am able to respond to. As members may be aware, Consumer and Business Services provides an advisory service to the tenancy sector on the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. I am advised that CBS receives around 3,000 requests for tenancy advice a month. The South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) is responsible for dealing with housing disputes in relation to the act. I am advised that SACAT receives over 800 tenancy applications for hearings a month.

The residential tenancy matters dealt with by CBS and SACAT vary significantly across many diverse areas. Data is not recorded in the level of detail necessary to be relevant to such technical amendments. Notwithstanding, SACAT orders appropriately record the particulars of individual matters which may or may not relate to these proposed amendments on a case-by-case basis. The government sought and relied on the advice of specialists within CBS and SACAT with significant experience on the services we provide and the issues we have encountered.

The amendments aim to support CBS in educating the tenancy sector and SACAT in resolving tenancy disputes. The effectiveness of these amendments will be observed by both CBS and SACAT, which will maintain their respective responsibilities in relation to residential tenancies. The government does not anticipate a notable reduction in requests for advice to CBS or applications to SACAT as the substance of these amendments is generally ancillary to broader matters. These amendments support and inform the tenancy sector where parties understand their rights and obligations.

I now wish to outline the detail and purpose of the government amendment that has been filed in relation to the bill. The amendment requires all abandoned properties sold by a landlord to be sold in accordance with section 97B(7) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. At present, if valuable abandoned property is sold, a landlord may only retain out of the proceeds of sale reasonable costs incurred and any amounts owed on a tenancy agreement. The balance, if any, must be paid to the owner of the property or, in their absence, the commissioner for the credit of the fund. Valuable abandoned property is defined as property of which the value exceeds a fair estimate of the cost of removal, storage and sale.

There are concerns that landlords may sell non-valuable abandoned property rather than destroying and disposing of it, and retain all proceeds from the sale. This issue has stemmed from the affordability of large household furniture, such as cupboards and bed frames, where the cost of removing, storing and selling the property often exceeds its value. A landlord may still sell this non-valuable property online, for example via Gumtree, and require the purchaser to collect the property from the premises.

This amendment aims to ensure that for all abandoned properties sold, the landlord may retain only reasonable costs and amounts owed under a tenancy agreement. The Real Estate Institute of South Australia, the Landlords Association Inc., and Anglicare SA all support the amendment. I look forward to the swift passage of this bill through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.