HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-03-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Housing Improvement Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 13.

The CHAIR: We are looking at amendment No. 13 on schedule 1 in the name of the member for Adelaide: clause 13, page 13, line 35.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 13 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 13, line 35 [clause 13(7), penalty provision]—Delete '$20,000' and substitute '$10,000'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This amendment is accepted.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 14.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 14 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 13, line 37 [clause 14(1)]—Delete 'The' and substitute 'Subject to subsection (1a), the'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This amendment is not supported. The fundamental principle of this legislation is to protect all members of the community from health and safety risks that are present in residential buildings.

Ms SANDERSON: This was part of the suite of amendments that were related to the owner/occupier being excluded, which the government has indicated they will not be supporting, so I have no further questions on this matter.

The CHAIR: The member for Schubert is looking very keen to contribute.

Mr KNOLL: I am. Can the minister advise how many buildings have actually been demolished? Again, if you have a time line that would be wonderful.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I am advised, on recent history, no buildings have been demolished, but I will take that on notice to come back to you—given that this bill has been around for 76 years.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: Amendment No. 15 on schedule 1 is consequential, so we are not proceeding. Are you happy with that?

Ms SANDERSON: Yes.

The CHAIR: That brings us to amendment No. 16, clause 14, page 14, line 22.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 16 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 14, line 22 [clause 14(4), penalty provision]—Delete '$20,000' and substitute '$10,000'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This amendment is accepted.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 15.

Mr KNOLL: I am keen to understand, and, I must admit, I missed, in the flurry of figures that the minister provided before, the number of houses that are under rent control. Am I right that it is about 1,400? Is that figure about right?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Yes.

Mr KNOLL: Does the minister have any understanding of whether the number of houses under rent control is increasing or decreasing over time? Is there a permanent pool of houses that will be subject to rent control because people are not going to upgrade them, or is this number falling over time? Is there a consistent trend?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As we said before, 1,409 properties have rent control. Obviously, there is a churn from time to time but this is, on average, what we would expect, or have seen in the past.

Mr KNOLL: So it is fairly consistent: we have not seen an increase or decrease in the number of houses, roughly?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I am advised.

Clause passed.

Clause 16 passed.

Clause 17.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 17 [Sanderson—1]—

Page 16, line 32 [clause 17(3)(c)]—After 'residential tenancy agreement' insert:

under which rent is payable

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This amendment is not supported. Clause 4, page 7, already provides the definition of 'residential tenancy agreement' which is:

…an agreement under which a person grants another person, for valuable consideration, a right (which may, but need not, be an exclusive right) to occupy residential premises…

The amendment is not supported.

Mr KNOLL: If there is a little bit of licence taken, I think this could be my last question. We were talking earlier about the office and the fact that there are seven permanent staff who look after this area. Can the minister provide any detail whether these officers administer provisions under any other bill? What I am trying to get at is: is there other work that these people undertake outside of administering the types of controls we have been talking about today?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I am advised, obviously the three officers do entirely that, as with the administration officers. As I am advised, the manager of the unit, however, also looks after the NPAH (National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness) contract.

Mr KNOLL: To elaborate on that area, does the department outsource to local government any of this work? You said before that 40 per cent of the houses are outside metropolitan Adelaide. Does the government contract out to local councils to undertake some of this inspection work of rent control properties on their behalf?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I am advised, we do not currently contract out to local government. However, we do heavily liaise with them. The act as it stands now does not enable us to contact a private provider to provide this work. However, the bill does. It would be, for example, someone like a building certifier who we believe would be able to support us with efficiency and effectiveness to do our recognition.

The CHAIR: Your question needs to be about the amendment. If you want to ask questions generally about the clause, it needs to be done afterwards. We have given you leeway.

Mr KNOLL: Certainly, and if I can have one more leeway then I will leave everybody alone.

The CHAIR: That will be the end of you for clause 17 then, because we are giving you lots of leeway.

Mr KNOLL: How often are inspections undertaken? As in, if we say the 1,400 properties under rent control, how often on average would these properties be inspected?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We will come back to the member for Schubert with some exact details about those inspected. There is an annual survey of all those under rent control and then a proportion of those will be inspected, but I will take on notice to come back to you with the mechanism of how that works.

The CHAIR: Any further questions on the amendment?

Ms SANDERSON: Yes, I do. Clause 17, page 17, line 5—

The CHAIR: You are moving off the amendment then. I am being reminded I must bring everybody back to the actual amendment and general discussion on the clause will be later. So, is there any question on amendment No. 17?

Amendment negatived.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 18 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 17, lines 6 to 7 [clause 17(4), penalty provision]—Delete the penalty provision and substitute:

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

Expiation fee: $210.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is accepted.

Amendment carried.

Ms SANDERSON: My question relates to clause 17, page 17, lines 4 to 7. Subclause (4) states:

A landlord who is given notice under subsection (3)(c)(iv) must ensure that any rent received by or on behalf of the landlord in respect of the premises is forwarded to the Minister within 14 days.

I just question the government's payment policy of having to pay people within 60 days (their suppliers) and how fair it is to expect a 14-day payment when in reverse.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I am informed, this clause reflects similar considerations in the Residential Tenancies Act.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I move:

Amendment No 1 [SocHousing-2]—

Page 17, lines 23 to 29 [clause 18(1)]—Delete subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) If the requirements of a housing assessment order, housing improvement order or housing demolition order are not complied with, any tenant or registered mortgagee or encumbrancee of the premises to which the order applies may take such action required by the order as may be authorised by the Minister.

The opposition's amendment removed the wording 'Residential Tenancy Act' which may limit the application of the clause where there are multiple tenant arrangements. The clause is to address circumstances where an order is not complied with and a registered mortgagee encumbrances or tenant seeks authorisation from the minister to take such action.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 19 and 20 passed.

Clause 21.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 20 [Sanderson-1]—

Page 18, line 33 [clause 21(1)]—Delete 'occupiers' and substitute 'tenant'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is not supported.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: Member for Adelaide, is it your intention not to proceed with your amendments 21 and 22?

Ms SANDERSON: Yes. I move:

Amendment No 23 [Sanderson-1]—

Page 19, line 1 [clause 21(2)(e)]—Delete 'if the premises are occupied under a residential tenancy agreement'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This amendment is not supported.

Amendment negatived.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 24 [Sanderson-1]—

Page 19, line 16 [clause 21(4), penalty provision]—Delete '$5,000' and substitute '$2,500'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is supported.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 22.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 25 [Sanderson-1]—

Page 19, line 18 [clause 22(1)]—Delete 'occupiers' and substitute 'tenants'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is not supported.

The CHAIR: Member for Adelaide, any further discussion?

Ms SANDERSON: The reason I am bringing this up again in reference to owner-occupiers is because this gives the tribunal the power to make an order for ejection from a home or compensation. Again, I think it is unfair for an owner-occupier to be ejected from their home. If it is because it needs to be demolished or if they are in grave danger, that is one thing, but that would be covered under building codes, development acts, the health act and many other acts. However, if it is simply because they are undergoing minor works, as I discussed in my second reading speech regarding this bill, I think it is completely unfair to be forced out of your home because it does not comply with the standards that this government seeks to enforce.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is not supported. I think we have made it very clear about safety being at the forefront. Whether an owner-occupier or a tenant, safety and the structural safety of your home has to be paramount.

Amendment negatived.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 27 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 19, lines 22 to 23 [clause 22(2)]—Delete 'If premises in respect of which a notice to vacate has been issued have been occupied under a residential tenancy agreement, the Tribunal may, on application by the tenant' and substitute:

The Tribunal may, on application by a tenant

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is not supported.

The CHAIR: Any discussion?

Ms SANDERSON: No, that is fine.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 23.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 28 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 20, line 5 [clause 23(5), penalty provision]—Delete '$2,500' and substitute '$1,250'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is supported.

Amendment carried.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 29 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 20, line 8 [clause 23(6), penalty provision]—Delete '$2,500' and substitute '$1,250'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This amendment is supported.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 24 passed.

Clause 25.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 30 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 21, lines 27 to 28 [clause 25, penalty provision]—Delete the penalty provision and substitute:

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

Expiation fee: $210.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is supported.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 26 passed.

Clause 27.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 31 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 22, lines 37 to 38 [clause 27, penalty provision]—Delete the penalty provision and substitute:

Maximum penalty: $1,250.

Expiation fee: $160.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is supported.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 28 passed.

Clause 29.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 32 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 24, line 4 [clause 29(4), penalty provision]—Delete '$2,500' and substitute '$1,250'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Amendment 32 is supported.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 30.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 33 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 24, lines 18 to 19 [clause 30, penalty provision]—Delete the penalty provision and substitute:

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

Expiation fee: $210.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is supported.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 31.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 34 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 24, lines 26 to 27 [clause 31(1), penalty provision]—Delete the penalty provision and substitute:

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

Expiation fee: $210.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is supported.

Amendment carried.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 35 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 24, lines 38 to 39 [clause 31(2), penalty provision]—Delete the penalty provision and substitute:

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

Expiation fee: $210.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is supported.

Amendment carried.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 36 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 25, lines 4 to 5 [clause 31(3), penalty provision]—Delete the penalty provision and substitute:

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

Expiation fee: $210.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This amendment is supported.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 32 passed.

Clause 33.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 37 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 25, line 33 [clause 33(1)]—After 'residential premises' insert 'that are occupied under a residential tenancy agreement'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This amendment is not supported.

Amendment negatived.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 38 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 25, lines 35 to 36 [clause 33(2)]—Delete ', in the case of residential premises that are occupied under a residential tenancy agreement'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This amendment is not supported.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: We are now looking at amendment No. 39 to clause 33 on schedule 1. Do you still want to move that?

Ms SANDERSON: It is superfluous.

The CHAIR: So, you are not proceeding.

Clause passed.

Clauses 34 to 40 passed.

Clause 41.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 40 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 28, lines 35 to 36—Delete 'if requested by a person affected by a decision of the Tribunal, where written reasons have not been given' and substitute 'in all cases'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We are not supporting this amendment. In fact, I thought we were not going ahead with it, but that is okay. The amendment is not supported. It seeks to impose a requirement on SACAT to produce written reasons for a decision in all cases. The clause states that written reasons will be provided if requested by a person affected by a decision of the tribunal. This is consistent with the current practice of SACAT in relation to other enabling legislation. It supports SACAT's approach to provide efficient judicial practices. The bill is not intended to produce differing procedures. Reasons for decisions are provided verbally at the hearing. This, combined with the provision of the orders made by SACAT in writing, is often sufficient for the parties.

Where a matter is complex or the reasons for decision cannot be sufficiently explained orally, SACAT will usually publish written reasons. As previously advised, SACAT must provide written reasons for decisions on request. Where a party to the proceedings is from a non-English speaking background, SACAT can arrange for interpreters at hearings and can provide parties with a copy of the transcript on request. It is also consistent with the requirements of tribunal members under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995, section 39. The amendment is not supported.

Ms SANDERSON: Yes, I am sorry, I agreed that I would not bring that forward. However, I wanted to speak on this amendment, so it will have the same effect. The reason that I suggested an amendment to this is because there are so many people in South Australia who have English as their second language. I have had many people come to my electorate office—even when they have been given letters or information, particularly about heritage listing of their home or different development things—when they completely misunderstand what they have been told. I feel that if they are given it only verbally and they do not know, they could go away with a completely different idea in their mind of what has actually happened.

However, I am told that that is standard, and they can ask for it to be put in writing afterwards, and there are interpreters available if requested. I hope that all of them know that going in, so that they know to ask for it in writing because it is a common problem in my electorate. We have a lot of Italian, Greek, Chinese and Indian people in particular—Indian people speak very good English, I must say—but particularly older Italians and Greeks often bring in mail to my office for me to help them read, interpret and understand, so that was the idea behind requesting that in writing.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 42 to 43 passed.

Clause 44.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 41 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 30, line 12 [clause 44, penalty provision]—Delete '$15,000' and substitute '$7,500'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is supported.

Amendment carried.

Ms SANDERSON: Just to put on the record, the reason for the amendment (which the government has accepted) is that we have halved all of the penalties because there was such a huge increase from the previous $100 fine, right up to $15,000 in this case, which we thought was extraordinarily high, so I thank the government for accepting all those amendments.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 45.

Ms SANDERSON: Some discussion on this section: it states in here that there will be a website. At the moment all of the different houses that are subject to orders are printed in the Gazette on a monthly basis, which is very difficult to keep track of, and there is no central place that you can go to get a listing of all the houses. If you were purchasing a house, it would be harder to find out if there was an order placed over that house, so I welcome the government's idea of having a register.

I question how much that would cost to access that information, if any fee structures have been worked out. I think it is probably free if you own the house, but if you are an investor or somebody looking at purchasing homes, how would you find out? There is also the question of people who might be fleeing domestic violence or in a situation where they do not want their homes to be on a register so that people know where they are. What information is on that register?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I thank the member for Adelaide for her question. We expect that the website will be up in the short term. There will be no cost to look up if there is a property on there, but there will be no identification about the owner of the property or the tenant.

Ms SANDERSON: One further question: line 30 states:

A member of the public may, on payment of a fee fixed by regulation obtain a copy…

Are you saying now that it is actually free?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As in many situations, if it is off the website it is free, if you wanted it printed out and sent to you, as I am advised, there is a cost.

Clause passed.

Clause 46.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 42 [Sanderson—1]—

Page 31, line 3 [clause 46(3), penalty provision]—Delete '$10,000' and substitute '$5,000'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is supported.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 47 and 48 passed.

Clause 49.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 43 [Sanderson—1]—

Page 31, line 31 [clause 49(3), penalty provision]—Delete '$2,500' and substitute '$1,250'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This amendment is supported.

Amendment carried, clause as amended passed.

Clause 50.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 44 [Sanderson—1]—

Page 31, line 35 [clause 50(1)(a)]—Delete ', subtenant or occupier' and substitute 'or subtenant'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This amendment is not supported.

Amendment negatived.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 45 [Sanderson—1]—

Page 32, line 19 [clause 50(2)]—Delete 'occupiers,'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is not supported.

Amendment negatived.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 46 [Sanderson—1]—

Page 32, line 21 [clause 50(2)]—Delete 'them' and substitute:

those persons, provided that reasonable attempts have been made to locate, and effect service on, each of the other relevant persons

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is accepted. This clause relates to the service of notice or orders on a person, and the government agrees to the amendment on the basis that all reasonable attempts will be made to effect service orders and notices on relevant persons.

Ms SANDERSON: The reason that I put this forward was in the instance of multiple landowners, people who are separated and might be interstate but there have not been property settlements, so I think it is quite important that reasonable attempts are made to contact everyone to let them know that an order has been placed on that property, whether it is a trust, a company, a partnership or a husband and wife, or whatever. I thank the government for accepting the amendment.

Amendment carried.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 47 [Sanderson—1]—

Page 32, lines 22 to 23 [clause 50(3)]—Delete 'an occupier or subtenant under this Act need not address the occupier or' and substitute:

a subtenant under this Act need not address the

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is not supported.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clause 51.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 48 [Sanderson—1]—

Page 32, line 28 [clause 51, penalty provision]—Delete '$20,000' and substitute '$10,000'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is supported.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 52 to 55 passed.

Clause 56.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 49 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 34, lines 12 to 15—Delete section 56 and substitute:

56—Joint and several liability

(1) Subject to subsection (2), where an amount is recoverable by the Minister from 2 or more persons under a provision of this Act, the provision is to be construed as if those persons were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the Minister.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an owner of residential premises if—

(a) his or her liability arose as a result of not having been given a housing assessment order, housing improvement order or a housing demolition order; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that the owner was not aware of the giving of the order to another owner of the premises,

by virtue of section 50(2).

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: The amendment is not supported.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 57 passed.

Clause 58.

Ms SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 50 [Sanderson–1]—

Page 35, lines 17 to 19 [clause 58(2)(e) and (f)]—Delete paragraphs (e) and (f) and substitute:

(e) prescribe penalties, not exceeding $5,000, for breach of any regulation; and

(f) fix expiation fees, not exceeding $315, for alleged offences against the regulations.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: This amendment is accepted.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (16:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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