HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-05-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Housing Improvement Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 March 2016.)

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:34): I rise to make a second reading contribution to the Housing Improvement Bill 2015 on behalf of the Liberal opposition. We have a Housing Improvement Act which has been around for more than 70 years. It currently makes provision for the protection of people who are living in substandard houses. The act requires certain upgrades and can make provision for demolition. It makes provision for cheaper rental if a dwelling is of a lower standard than is available. It makes provision for a public notice through the Gazette for what properties are subject to a housing improvement assessment order. It does all the things that are important to ensure that we provide protection for tenants in the accommodation that they have.

Following the Depression of the 1930s, South Australia had high demand and poor standards of housing due to inconsistencies in supply. South Australia implemented the Housing Improvement Act 1940 in an aim to ensure safe and appropriate housing standards in South Australia. A government review of the act has found that the provisions needed to enforce minimum safety standards and ensure owners carry out essential maintenance are not effective. Subsequently, some occupants continue to be at risk of being exposed to significant safety issues, health hazards and/or unfair rent in substandard homes.

A discussion paper was released in 2010 about changing the legislation. It then took this government six years from the original discussion paper in 2010 for this bill to come to parliament. In 2012, the Housing Improvement Bill consultation received 16 written submissions. So, here we are: the Housing Improvement Bill 2015 we are dealing with today, which will repeal the Housing Improvement Act 1940.

Our shadow minister and spokesperson for social housing, the wonderful and hardworking member for Adelaide in the other place, together with many members of the opposition, have made valuable contributions to debate the bill. I encourage other honourable members to read their contributions. I understand that the member for Adelaide worked very diligently to review the consultation papers, and she found that some of the suggestions from both the Landlords' Association and the Law Society of South Australia were not included in the government's final draft of the bill.

Whilst the Liberal Party supports this bill in general, there are some areas which we believe can be improved upon. The member for Adelaide, the member for Bragg and other members in the other place quite clearly articulated many significant concerns, and that this bill could be used as a revenue-raising activity for the government as opposed to actually trying to ensure that rental accommodation is kept to a decent standard.

The first area of concern that we have is in relation to owner-occupier homes. We believe that the bill should only relate to residential properties that are tenanted or intended to be tenanted. This is because unsuitable and unsafe housing predominantly affects lower-income households, including new migrants, and international and local students. If it is the case, then why include owner-occupier homes?

When the member for Adelaide met with ministerial and departmental staff, she was assured that the act had never been applied to an owner-occupier in the last 70 years. With this in mind, we believe that owner-occupiers should therefore be excluded from the bill.

As the shadow parliamentary secretary for multicultural affairs, I am fully aware that we have a very diverse community residing in South Australia. Different people from different cultures and backgrounds will have different interpretations of what is suitable or acceptable to their needs, and this should be taken into account.

People should be given the freedom to live how they wish in their own house, on their properties, as long as they are causing no harm to their neighbours and do not pose any risk to others. All citizens should be empowered to take personal responsibility for their own living conditions and accommodation.

Many people start out buying their first home and renovating it as they can afford to, and many would have lived in conditions that would be in contravention of this act. This would most certainly impact on people's ability to purchase homes. What is the point of imposing fines on someone, or taking them to court, when the reason they are living the way they are is often due to the lack of money, or lack of time to get things fixed around their house because they are working full time to pay off their mortgage?

If the government was really serious about ensuring that we have safe and affordable accommodation for those in our community who are financially less well off then it should start thinking about the land tax on some of these properties. It should start thinking about the cost of subsidy on rental for these properties.

If the government was serious about dealing with low-cost accommodation it would meet with constituents who own these low-cost properties, identify what areas of capital input may be needed to upgrade or demolish and start again and/or work with them to make sure that they are not in a situation where they are forced to sell off or make improvements that then make it unattainable for the very people that this government claims it is supporting.

That is what the government should be doing, but it is not. It is bringing in a bill for us to consider that is going to affect the people who live in these homes themselves who are not seeking to make any financial gain from anyone else but who choose to live in accommodation that they may own or occupy. Why should we, as legislators, impose unfairly on disadvantaged members of our community? It is not just the people who I refer to here in the suburbs of Adelaide but the people who live in regional South Australia who are living in accommodation on farms, on council land and on other properties around towns in regional South Australia.

No doubt this accommodation may have a few undesirable characteristics, such as the plumbing might be a bit rusty, the electricity may be safe but with uneven distribution, it may have poor amenities in furnishings and may not have all the modern gadgets that go with what we could expect living in comfortable suburban areas in metropolitan Adelaide. However, these homes are providing accommodation to people who are looking for employment and who are willing to work in regional parts of South Australia.

These people want to find accommodation in towns spread across South Australia's country regions and to be provided with low-cost affordable accommodation in this state for both individuals and families. We wish to remind the government that the object of this bill is not just about appearances and the best presentation of accommodation; it is about keeping people safe in the suburbs as well as accommodation outside of metropolitan Adelaide, as pointed out by many of my colleagues in country regions in the other place.

Those places may look tired and run down and they are often unoccupied for long periods of time. They are certainly not fashionable and do not have the updates that a lot of other properties have but they are still providing safe, secure and affordable accommodation to many people in this state who are financially vulnerable.

The second issue the opposition has is in relation to penalty. When you look at the fines that are part of this proposed legislation it is of significant concern: to introduce a regime of fines of tens of thousands of dollars, which currently are in hundreds of dollars in this old act, as some kind of penalty that is going to be imposed to make these bad landlords do the right thing to upgrade these properties—this cannot be seen as fair and reasonable.

The original proposed Housing Improvement Bill 2015 will increase the maximum penalty to $20,000 which is a severe increase from the low base of $100. So I am very pleased that the opposition, through the great work of the member for Adelaide, Ms Rachel Sanderson, was able to successfully move amendments to rectify and correct excessive penalties simply because the amount does not fit the offence.

The amendment by the member for Adelaide reduced the proposed government penalty by 50 per cent, from a $20,000 fine to a $10,000 fine, which is still a large amount but a more suitable charge for the breach of the provisions. The government, to its credit, accepted those amendments in the House of Assembly. I am pleased that the Liberal opposition has successfully moved those amendments to reduce the amount of hefty fines across the bill.

The third area we challenged the government to think about was in relation to SACAT. They should provide all decisions in writing. The reason for this is to encourage transparency and openness from the tribunal in line with other judicial bodies. The fourth area is that reasonable attempts should be made to serve all relevant parties, not just the owners.

The fifth area is about liability. Joint liability should not be applied if there is reasonable proof that the person was not aware of the situation. For instance, in a situation of a divorce or where property is held in trust, not all parties might realise what has been happening and, therefore, should not be held to account, unless there is proof that they had been notified and were aware.

The sixth area of concern is that the bill refers to who a qualified person is under the act. What is not made clear are the requirements of that person. Under the proposed act, such a person can enter premises, private properties, using reasonable force. We have the right to ask whether such forced entry into private properties is appropriate, or is it another attempt at red tape by a Labor government leading to breaking locks, doors or windows?

In this bill, the legislative authority and power to issue orders will be transferred from the South Australian Housing Trust, in conjunction with local government, to the minister. This is a very significant change in the bill, and we question whether the ministerial housing orders will now have longer processing times than under current arrangements.

Now that it is not only the metropolitan areas included in this bill but the whole state, we particularly see problems with how the minister will be best placed to make those decisions. Surely it would be the Housing Trust and the local government that have more people on the ground and that have a lot more knowledge about their local area and the houses that are within those areas.

At present, under the Housing Improvement Act 1940, reports need to be furnished to the minister in regard to capital expenditure by resolution of either house of parliament or, if required, by the minister under any other act. The minister's role, however, transforms from one of receiving the information in updates to now deciding and acting upon information received by authorised persons with the minister's delegated authority.

We have seen over the terms of this Labor government how many times ministers making decisions can end up in very controversial outcomes; so we question whether a minister is really the right person to be making these decisions.

So what does it do? It takes away, under this bill, the proposed scrutiny and measures with which we look at and ensure that the tenancies are spaces which are safe for tenants and the like; which is the objective of the act—in fact, the principal act is being repealed. It takes them away from local government and away from the South Australian Housing Trust, and gives them to the minister, who apparently is going to keep a register, and these people, the authorised officers, are going to have a job to do.

The authorised officers under this bill are to have the power to enter, to inspect premises, and to do all the things that currently, to a large degree, local government representatives do already; to issue the notices, to take photographs and to put the process through.

It is going to have some extra powers. As usual, when the government comes along with these authorised officers, they want to give them extra powers, particularly in protecting against anyone who dares to suggest to the authorised officer that they might be in breach of the powers. People are not allowed to hinder or obstruct an authorised officer, etc., and there are massive penalties if they do so. So my question would be: what additional powers, if any, would the minister require outside that which has already been prescribed within the act?

Division 3 talks about the rental control notices, and the previous act limits the application of rental control of substandard houses in the metropolitan area, and areas that the governor declares by proclamation. We believe that these are already listed in the Gazette, so it is very time consuming to find all these areas, because they are not in one place. Although we support this bill in principle, as I indicated, there are certainly some changes that should be made, as I have outlined, and I will be tabling some recommendations and amendments.

It has taken 14 years of a Labor government to get around to introducing this bill. Given the time that has been taken, it should be open to taking on the amendments that we propose to make this bill a much better legislation.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! There is lot a conversation across the chamber. The Hon. Ms Lee has the floor.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Thank you, Mr Acting President, for your protection. We will support improvements to the current legislation. Obviously, we are here on this side of the chamber to modernise the legislation. I will be urging all the honourable members on the crossbench to support the amendments I will be moving.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:50): The bill reworks the current Housing Improvement Act, which deals with unsafe and unsanitary housing. Currently, complaints about the condition of housing can be made to the housing improvements branch at Housing SA. These complaints are being triaged and assessed accordingly. If a house is deemed to be substandard, an order can be made which outlines the work that is required to be undertaken by the owner. In briefings, the housing improvement branch indicated that currently most complaints are received from tenants who are concerned about the rental property they are tenanting. They expect this to continue to be the case under the new provisions as well.

I understand that there is some contention over allowing the bill to include properties that are owner occupied. On the one hand, there are many circumstances where a person may be living in a property which many may consider to be substandard. The most obvious is if the property is being renovated, but there may also be circumstances where owners are living in a property while waiting for demolition approval, or they simply cannot afford to renovate the property.

In these cases, owners would be very unhappy to receive an improvement notice. However, I understand that this provision is more targeted towards matters which have been identified as dangerous, especially if they pose a risk to the general public or neighbours. For example, wiring may be dangerous and be at risk of starting a fire which could affect neighbouring properties, or a wall may be at risk of collapsing and could endanger those walking past on the street. In these circumstances, the community expectation would be for some sort of intervention to protect their safety. However, there is an issue of balancing the overall needs of the community versus an individual's right to live in their property without interference from the government.

I understand that in cases where owners are unable to undertake improvement works, the improvement order remains against the property, that is to say that action is not necessarily taken against the owner for failing to comply with the notice. If this is the case, there may be an argument that government intervention into the homes of owner occupiers is not warranted. If the owner is unable or refuses to do the work, the public safety issue remains.

The bill provides additional opportunities for orders to be reviewed through SACAT. At the moment, owners are usually only made aware of the problem once a matter has been investigated and an order made. The new provisions allow for the housing improvement branch to contact an owner earlier and work collaboratively with the owner to find a solution. Allowing owners the opportunity to have the decision of the housing improvement branch reviewed by SACAT is an improvement on the current act. Personally, I would have thought that a more appropriate avenue for administering issues relating to owner-occupied properties would be local councils. As such, I would ask the minister if any consideration was given to this, particularly in view of the fact that there have been very minimal examples of intervention in the past.

I note that the Hon. Jing Lee has a number of amendments aimed at removing those provisions regarding owner-occupied properties from this bill, and I am certainly considering those in the context of this debate. Lastly, I am concerned that the bill takes away a person's right to remain silent. As honourable members would know, removing a person's right to remain silent has been a common theme in many of the bills presented to this place over recent years, based on the argument that, whilst a person's right to silence is removed, the information provided cannot be used to assist in prosecuting that person for an offence. I have not supported such provisions in the past and I do not intend to on this occasion either.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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