Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–1]—

Page 3, after line 10—Insert:

4A—Repeal of section 83

Section 83—delete the section

This is the deletion of a section that then creates a provision for no-cause eviction amendments to be made to this bill. The arguments around no-cause evictions are well known, and the Hon. Mark Parnell, my Greens colleague, has previously put them to this place. We will put them again today in this debate, and I imagine we will keep putting them as we continue to raise awareness in this place of the very strong community support for these provisions.

I draw the attention of the council to the previous words of my honourable colleague, who notes that this is a provision that is to cover those circumstances where a landlord wishes to end a tenancy agreement for no reason. Certainly, he has drawn attention to that time and time again. Often the fact that the landlord can currently do this means that areas of discrimination which we should not be supporting in our society are able to be used to kick tenants out. There needs to be some protections for tenants. There should be cause if they are to be evicted. It is reasonably simple.

While I do not do as much justice as the Hon. Mark Parnell, who has long worked in this area, to this particular speech, I note that while I acknowledge that the Landlords' Association does oppose this, groups such as Shelter SA and others who advocate for the rights of tenants have long called for it. As I say, I move this today to test whether there will be the support in this chamber, but say that we will be bringing this again to this place because tenants of a place that is their home should have a reason if they are to be evicted from that home. With that, I commend the amendment.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The government opposes the amendment moved by the Hon. Mark Parnell and spoken to by the Hon. Tammy Franks because it seeks to limit the flexibility of periodic tenancies and significantly imbalances the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords. The Residential Tenancies Act recognises and provides for both a fixed-term tenancy and a periodic tenancy. A fixed-term tenancy has a specific start date and end date agreed upon at the beginning of the tenancy. A periodic tenancy is an agreement for an indefinite period which will continue until the tenancy is lawfully terminated.

Either a landlord or a tenant may serve notice to terminate a periodic tenancy for no reason. A tenant is required to give 21 days' written notice of such termination, while a landlord is required to give 90 days' notice. These notices of termination may be served on the other party simply because the first party wishes to terminate the agreement. It is not necessary for the other party to be in breach of the agreement. A landlord is also able to terminate a periodic tenancy by serving 60 days' notice in some limited circumstances, including where the landlord will be demolishing the premises, undertaking renovations, moving into the premises or selling the premises.

The current no-grounds termination of periodic tenancies and notice periods for tenants and landlords is well established within the South Australian tenancy sector and has been in operation for over two decades, in fact since the commencement of the act. I understand that all jurisdictions provide for no-grounds termination of periodic tenancies and that the notice period required for landlords in South Australia is consistent with the notice period for landlords interstate. In particular, the required period for New South Wales is 90 days, for Queensland 60 days and for Victoria 120 days.

The existing requirements for no-grounds termination of periodic tenancies provide a fair balance between the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords. The proposed amendment would seek to significantly disadvantage landlords, to the point where a landlord will be bound by a periodic tenancy indefinitely unless the tenant breaches the agreement or any of the very specific circumstances outlined above occur. On the other hand, a tenant could still terminate the agreement at any stage by providing 21 days' notice.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I rise to indicate the Liberal Party's position. The Liberal Party will not be supporting the amendment as moved by the Hon. Tammy Franks. Our reasoning is consistent with many of the reasons outlined by the minister. We also believe that there is insufficient evidence to show an abuse of this clause by landlords.

New clause negatived.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Police–1]—

Page 3, after line 25— Insert:

(2) Section 97B(7)—after 'section,' insert:

or if any other abandoned property is sold by the landlord,

This 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 other amounts owed under the tenancy agreement. The balance, if any, must be paid to the owner of the property or, in the absence of the commissioner, for the credit of the fund. Valuable abandoned property is defined as a property the value of which exceeds a fair estimate of the cost of the approval, storage and sale.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clause (7) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (15:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.