HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Attorney indicated that the commencement date to be proclaimed is expected to be next year, assuming passage through the other house sometime early next year. Is there any chance that the draft could be completed at least, so that we can have a look at the draft form? This form is going to cover penalties, so it is not just like the normal rules that go with it. There are very strict penalties for 'not using any other form' and complying with this, so we would like to have a look at it, if possible, before the passage of the bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I said before, we have not actually commenced the task of drafting that but, once the bill is dealt with, I undertake that we will make it a priority to get that form worked up. Obviously, because it will be in regulation, if it does not meet with everyone's approval, it will not be going anywhere, so it is in my interests, and everyone's interests, that we deal with any issues in that document and get them sorted out as quickly as possible.

Sorry, I misunderstood that. I am advised that presently the commissioner is able to do that. If it is a matter of serious concern, I do not mind it being a regulation issue. It does not matter. There is no intention to make this a sneaky, 'creep up on you' type issue.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: My query, I think, relates to subclause (8), which refers to section 3(1), but essentially it is about the water payments. I would just like to ask for clarity, probably because I have not read the Waterworks Act or the Sewerage Act but, with regard to exactly what water charges will be passed on, is it water usage, is it supply or is it both of those?

I just put on the record my understanding that, if a tenant defaults, a landlord is currently automatically responsible for water bills. Is it the intention of this bill to completely change that, so that the full responsibility for everything associated with water—River Murray levies and everything that comes on a standard SA Water bill—will then be entirely the responsibility of the tenant, and so that, if the tenant defaults and eventually just does not pay for whatever reason, it will not and cannot come back to the landlord?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am sorry that that took a little time, but I thought it was worth getting it right. I am advised that the present arrangements are that the first 136 kilolitres are paid by the landlord where there is no agreement. What will happen under these changes is that, in the case of separately metered tenancies where there is no agreement, the default position will be that all the usage is paid by the tenant, but not the sewerage. In effect, it changes the default position where there is no explicit agreement. The default position has gone from the first 136 paid by the landlord to all paid by the tenant. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that the tenant can require to be provided with a copy of the bill, which is an improvement on present arrangements, and the third thing is that rates are to be communicated to the tenant on a quarterly basis. There is a requirement that they must be communicated within three months, so that the tenant does not wind up in a situation where, out of nowhere, some accumulated indebtedness for sewerage or water rates is suddenly dropped on them. It is an example of both sides getting something out of this. The tenant is getting access to the water bill, they are also getting a guarantee that they will receive it broken up in a periodic fashion so that they do not get hit with one big whack at some point in time, but in the absence of an agreement to the contrary the landlord is getting the tenant's paying for the usage of the water.

The CHAIR: Minister, part of the question was that in the absence of the tenant paying or defaulting, where does the account then reside? With the landlord?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: With the landlord.

The CHAIR: I think that was the nub of the question.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Because it remains the landlord's property.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you, Chair, for that. Quite right. It is an agreement about how everything would work swimmingly well if the tenant paid, but if the tenant does not pay whether there is an agreement or not it still becomes the landlord's responsibility eventually. Keeping in mind your yin and yang example, it is all good on the surface. When everything is going well, everything is great; but the final resulting responsibility still falls to the landlord even if an agreement has been put in place. It may well be, as the member for Goyder has pointed out to me, that a landlord and a tenant might have an agreement whereby the rent might be slightly lower in return for the tenant paying everything including the usage and the supply (the sewerage, River Murray) but if the tenant defaults it is still all back on the landlord. Is that accurate?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, that is; however, clearly, if there is an explicit agreement between the landlord and the tenant, there are a couple of things that flow from that. One is that the landlord, for what it is worth, would be able to pursue recovery of those funds through the Residential Tenancies Tribunal and they would have primary access to the bond that would be held in the deposit and, I guess in the event of that not being sufficient, we are getting to the point where the tenant is unlikely to have any other money but they would still be in breach of contract and there would be the capacity for a small claim to be taken in respect of that. If you think it through, the consequence of not doing that would be that ultimately—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Could the members at the back please keep their voices down. Members on my right at the back. Member for Ramsay, your voice can be heard at the front.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The effect of not doing that would actually be to make the ultimate guarantor of the tenant SA Water rather than the landlord, and SA Water's relationship is more remote.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: I understand.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I seek clarification of one point in the minister's initial response. You talked about the need to provide every three months details of the water consumption. I thought that meter readings only occur every six months.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. I know we receive a bill every three months, but there is only a water cost component for two of those four billing periods in a 12-month cycle.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank goodness those people in Consumer and Business Services have spent so much time thinking about this, they know all the answers immediately which is very satisfactory from my point of view. Apparently all you have to do is flick to page 24 of the document and if you look at section 46(2)(iii) it says the tenant is not required to pay the charges for water supply if the landlord fails to request payment from the tenant within three months of the issue of the bill for those rates and charges by the water supply authority or the tenant has requested from the landlord a copy of the account for the rates and charges and the landlord has failed to provide a copy to the tenant within 14 days of the request and at no cost.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I think I understand everything you have said, minister, and I appreciate that. I am not here to advocate for the landlords or the tenants, but it does seem to me that, while this facilitates a way that they could all get on better together, there is actually no security for the landlord in what has been proposed, ultimately, if the tenant does not want to pay.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it is fair to say that no, there is no increased security in respect of that. As I said, the normal rule is that the default position is actually better for landlords but, in the event of noncompliance by the tenant, no, there is no greater security.

Ms CHAPMAN: Statutory charges is now an impressive list under this bill of state and local government charges. I am wondering where the water prescription fees come in. Some areas, of course, are well known for their prescription, such as the Barossa and places like that; they have learned to live with it. Others are not so happy and have either got rid of it or sent them away, but it is coming to the Adelaide Hills. So, I inquire as to whether that is going to be under (b), (e) or (f).

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Are you meaning NRM—

Ms CHAPMAN: Not the NRM levies; the water prescription levies, which are being dealt with by the water minister, for the Western Mount Lofty Zone and the Eastern Zone and, I think, after that—we already have some, of course—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will get back to you on that; we will check it out. I think, in fairness to everybody, the new water act is not yet in, so we are in this sort of transitional period. I do not think it comes in until 1 January, if I recall correctly. So, there are some aspects of things that are in transition, but we will—

Ms Chapman: Another lot.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Oh, it is another lot? Rightio. Anyway, we will get back to you.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Just to make sure I have got this right, I am talking about land tax and changes in land tax. I know we are talking about residential tenancies. In commercial tenancies for properties, I think, with rent of less than $250,000 a year, a landlord is not allowed to adjust the rent in line with adjustments to land tax. Could a residential landlord under this arrangement adjust the rent in line with changes to land tax, given that land tax is one of the statutory charges?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think we will take that on notice as well. These are quite detailed questions, but yes, we will—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Sorry about that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, that is fine; we will get an answer for those.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT