HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-09-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Residential Tenancies (Renting with Pets) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:14): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, 23 September, is Dogs in Politics Day, a tradition that goes back to 1952, which is a fitting day to reintroduce the Greens' renting with pets bill. As I outlined in my second reading explanation on the 2019 bill last October, this bill addresses an area well overdue for reform and if passed will have a significant positive effect on many lives, both human and non-human. Australia has one of the highest rates of pet ownership in the world, with 61 per cent of Australian households having pets today, and 90 per cent of them having had pets at some time.

Many see their pets not just as companions but as treasured members of the family. They refer to their dogs and cats as their fur babies or their fur kids, which highlights the important place these pets have within families. So to be told by a landlord that you are not allowed to take your beloved pet with you to your new home is nothing less than heartbreaking. Having to abandon the family pet in order to have a place to live should not be a choice that anyone should have to make. Sadly, however, this is a reality for many South Australians.

Last October, I noted that in the 2018-19 year, 259 South Australian pets were surrendered to the RSPCA and 108 were surrendered to the Animal Welfare League simply because their owners could not find pet-friendly rental accommodation. In fact, there were more pets surrendered to animal shelters than these 367 pets because the Animal Welfare League had to divert some of the surrenders to other places while they underwent a redevelopment.

That is just the tip of the iceberg because the figure does not include the people who gave up their pet to a family member or friends, or those who surrendered their pet to a shelter other than the two main ones in Adelaide. It does not include those people who choose to live in their car rather than give up their pet, or those who move back in with their parents.

It does not include those who choose to remain in substandard rental accommodation on insecure periodic leases while they search for a better place to live that allows them to keep their pet with them. It also does not include those people experiencing domestic violence, who choose to stay in that situation in order to protect their pet because there are so few options for them to find alternate accommodation that lets them bring their pet with them.

Last Friday, The Advertiser reported that one of the side effects of COVID-19 is that the RSPCA has seen a surge in animal adoptions, creating a record high. The acting chief executive, Kevin Tinkler, was quoted as saying, 'Many people for the first time have discovered the benefits of having animals in their lives. Adoptions peaked in March at the height of the COVID restrictions.'

That is great news, but unfortunately it is accompanied by some bad news. Although overall fewer pets were being surrendered compared with the previous year, there was in fact an increase in the number of pets being surrendered because their owner could not find a place to rent that allowed their pet.

So while the RSPCA had 259 pets surrendered to them in the 2019 financial year because of this issue, there were 293 surrendered in the 2020 financial year—an increase of 13 per cent in one year. This is not something we can continue to ignore. The last census informed us that 28 per cent of South Australians rent their home, and this figure is growing. With an average of 61 per cent of households owning pets, a lot of South Australians are affected by this growing problem and the time has come to fix it.

Since I introduced this bill last October, the renting with pets laws in Victoria, as well as in the ACT, have come into effect. This bill is largely based on their laws. The Northern Territory also passed similar laws in February this year, but have delayed commencement due to COVID, and the Queensland government began looking at similar changes late last year. The ACT legislation was the first Australian jurisdiction to commence these new laws. The ACT laws came into effect on 1 November last year, and the Victorian legislation commenced on 1 March this year.

The very next day after the Victorian laws came into effect a Victorian couple put the new laws to the test and applied to keep their dog Rocco in their Wodonga rental home. Their landlord had decided not to consent to Rocco and applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The tribunal ruled in the tenants' favour and Rocco was allowed to live with his human companions. That was a great result for that family and I am sure we will be hearing many more good news stories like this as time goes on and more and more Australian jurisdictions get on board with this important legislative change.

A significant part of the problem, which my bill addresses, is that the default position of most residential tenancy agreements is that pets are not allowed. This bill flips that around, making it the default position that pets are allowed. There will, of course, be circumstances where keeping a certain type of pet or pets in certain types of rental premises will not be appropriate, and the bill allows for these exceptions.

However, rather than the landlord or their agent taking a blanket 'no pets' approach to residential tenancy agreements, if the landlord does not consent to the tenant's application for a pet or pets then they can apply to SACAT and SACAT will make the decision, having consideration for the circumstances in each case. The Greens believe that this is a much fairer system than the one we currently have. To fully explain how the provisions in the bill will operate, I have prepared an explanation of clauses, which I will seek later to incorporate.

In the development of the bill we consulted with Shelter SA, SACOSS, the South Australian Tenants' Information and Advisory Service, the Australian consumer advocacy organisation CHOICE, the Community Housing Council of SA, Better Renting, the RSPCA, the Real Estate Institute of South Australia, the Landlords' Association and a number of property managers. We would like to put on the record our thanks to each of these organisations and individuals who gave us their time and feedback.

In fact, the difference between this bill and the 2019 bill is in response to feedback from the Real Estate Institute, the Landlords' Association and property managers. For example, one change was to insert a new provision so that landlords can give written notice to their tenants requiring them to restrain their pets during inspections. This was raised as a health and safety issue for people conducting the inspections and it is a concern that can be easily addressed, and we have.

It is also important to acknowledge the long list of South Australians who provided us with their stories about renting with their pets. These lived experiences must be front and centre in our consideration on how we legislate to address this problem. I would like to put a few of these on the record. Diana's story goes like this:

While my kids were growing up, we had a King Charles spaniel and we had to hide her, as most places would not allow animals. My story right now is my kids are all grown up and moved out of our family rented home. I stayed with my son for 18 months trying to find a place that would allow me to have a cat. During eight months of hard looking daily, not one came up. I would like a cat and a dog or two cats. They prolong life, they reduce stress and they have every right to have a home like humans do. There are a lot of mental health issues today and pets help to make changes in this.

Kate tells us her story:

I'm trying to get into the rental market from my parents' family home. We are finding it extremely difficult finding a house that will even consider pets that suit us, our price and in an area that is suitable. All currently have turned us down as soon as we have said we have a golden retriever. She is family, she is my child. Other people can have their kids in a rental home, why can't I have my dog, who is my child, with me? I shouldn't have to give her up to have a roof over my head. You wouldn't abandon a child, why are people expected to abandon pets?

Maria's story:

I currently live alone and have a pet dog who I might have to give up because my lease is up in February and my rent is too high to renew. There is a serious lack of houses that are near to my work that allow pets that are at a price I can afford on my own. My other option is to try and hide my dog and risk being evicted if she was to be found, which isn't a good option either. I have a high-stress job and coming home to a pet greatly reduces that and makes my life more enjoyable.

Holly tells us:

I moved to Adelaide from the Eyre Peninsula for uni and had to leave my dog I've had for 15 years behind with my parents. My mum has since become very ill and is currently recovering from electroconvulsive therapy, so she is not always up to looking after an elderly dog at the moment. I have always struggled with depression and anxiety and my dog has been my anchor during dark times. I have recently been diagnosed with PTSD and I am desperately missing having my dog during this period of intense therapy and medication changes. She is a well-trained, elderly miniature poodle who doesn't even bark because she is deaf. I would love to be able to have grounds to negotiate with my landlord about having her live with me.

The final story I would like to tell is from Emma:

A few rentals back I was in a nice little unit in the north-eastern suburbs, great rental agent and really lovely landlords. But when I asked during my second year of renting if I could get a cat, as I was lonely and deeply missing having a pet as I had not been able to have one at my previous rental, I was told no in no uncertain terms. There was no room for negotiation or discussion. It was an absolute no, and led me to searching for a new rental that would allow a pet.

Thankfully, I've been very lucky since then to have found rentals that have allowed a pet because I honestly don't know what I would do if I had to give up my cat in order to have a home. It wouldn't feel like a home without her. I honestly don't understand why landlords are so opposed to tenants having a pet (or two), I mean, we already have to pay a substantial bond when we move in so if there was any damage it's covered.

I mentioned last year that I have a petition on my website which calls on the South Australian parliament to support laws that make pets welcome in rental properties. When I last introduced this bill, there were just over 400 signatures from South Australians. The number currently stands at over 1,300. The Greens are not alone in the campaign to make it easier for people to rent with their pets. Shelter SA has long campaigned to allow renters to have pets, as has the rental organisation Better Renting. Joel Dignam, Executive Director of Better Renting, in a media release yesterday commented that rental laws should be changed so that renters can have pets as easily as home owners. Mr Dignam said:

This proposed reform would mean that landlords would need a fair reason before they can block their tenants from having a pet. This is a positive step. If you rent your home, it's your home, and the law should reflect that.

Unsurprisingly, the RSPCA have also been calling for our laws to be reformed. In a media release yesterday, RSPCA South Australia's Animal Welfare Advocate, Dr Rebekah Eyers, commended the real estate industry for encouraging landlords to offer pet friendly properties but said that this approach had not worked. Dr Eyers said:

The only way to fix this serious human and animal welfare issue is through legal reform.

South Australia needs to catch up with modern thinking around pets in rentals, and align with Victoria, the ACT and the NT. They all have laws designed to give renters with pets greater access to secure housing.

The media release reflects on the distress experienced by RSPCA staff as well as the pet owners and the pets. It continues:

For an organisation focused on rehoming of animals to responsible owners, seeing the bonds between good owners and their pets torn apart is distressing for RSPCA staff. Cher Long, who works in the organisation's strays and surrenders area, is concerned for the emotional wellbeing of people forced to surrender animals in these circumstances.

'I can't count the number of owners I've comforted as they part with pets they adore, simply because they can't find anywhere to rent that allows animals,' Ms Long said.

'These are good people, good pet owners—yet they're being knocked back just because their family happens to include a dog or a cat. And the animals are suffering too, because they suddenly find themselves living in an unfamiliar environment without their owners.'

Pets play such an important part in our lives and have a huge positive influence. They improve our lives in so many ways. Owning a pet has been shown to have psychological benefits for child development and for adults and a positive impact on our health and wellbeing. Basically, pets make us happier and healthier. So let's change the laws to make pets welcome in South Australia. Finally, I commend the bill to the chamber. I seek leave to include an explanation of clauses into Hansard without my reading it.

The PRESIDENT: Before we deal with that, the Hon. Mr Parnell, have you been fortunate enough to have the explanatory clauses drafted by parliamentary counsel?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I consulted just a few minutes ago with my Chief of Staff, who advised me that she drafted them but she ran them past parliamentary counsel and they had no problem with them. It is only two pages, and I could read it.

The PRESIDENT: My advice would be that you seek leave to table the explanatory clauses rather than insert them in Hansard.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I seek leave to table the explanation of clauses.

Leave granted.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. N.J. Centofanti.

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