HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-03-31 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Residential Tenancies (Renting with Pets) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If I could speak briefly at clause 1, given the time and I am mindful that we do not want to make the second last day of the Hon. Mr Parnell's illustrious parliamentary career a late one—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: You are going to make my day, though.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —unless he so chooses. Your day has already been made, the Hon. Mr Parnell. You have had a wonderful day. Everyone has been saying nice things about you.

I indicated on behalf of the government at the second reading stage that the government supported the second reading but was reserving its position in relation to the third reading. I think the honourable member will acknowledge that he has had a long series of discussions with the Attorney-General on behalf of the government. The government has reflected on its position. I can say, without revealing the nature of discussions within our party, that we are a very broad church. A range of views were expressed, but ultimately the view of the Liberal Party has been to oppose the legislation.

I just want to flag clause 1. For example, if the member became aware that there was a majority view in this chamber that it was not going to support the third reading, it may well expedite things and we do not therefore extend the debate during the committee. If he is not of that view, that he thinks he still has a chance, well, good luck to him and we will work our way through the committee stage of the debate.

Can I say, just in case the debate does not go on for an extended length of time, there were a range of views expressed in our party room. All members understood the point of view that the honourable member was reflecting in the legislation before us. There are particular examples that he and many others have spoken about, when it was likely to be much less objectionable to most landlords, I suspect—the elderly widowed pensioner, moving from a big home to a small place, has a small cat, a companion animal she has had for 20 years, and wants to take it with her, as opposed to a young male with tats and a Rottweiler.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Neither of them are necessarily bad.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, exactly. Nevertheless, landlords rightly might have a different perception, so I am not going to go into the detail of that. I think the honourable member understands there is a continuum of circumstances. He was trying to cater for different circumstances. There were many others who had views that it opened up the capacity for issues in other areas. Victoria has proceeded down this particular path, and with the passage of time more and more people may well see how that has operated there.

I will not go into great length, other than to indicate that the Attorney-General engaged in discussions with the honourable member and she pursued the issues fairly within our party room, but the overwhelming view of our party room was to oppose the legislation. If that helps expedite the committee stage of debate, then I place on the record that government members will be voting against the third reading of the legislation.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for that contribution. My intention would be to say that the minister is correct, that depending on the views that are expressed early on this debate it may or may not expedite the process. I do want to put on the record some of the responses that we have to the Law Society's submission because that is the basis of all the amendments that I moved.

I want to put on the record also briefly our response to the Hon. John Darley's amendments. If the indication we get from the Labor Party is similar to that of the Liberal Party, that they are not going to support the third reading, then I will be satisfied by taking a few moments to put on the record what we were trying to do. Then, when we get beyond clause 1, I will not in fact need to move the amendments, so that would expedite the process. The Hon. John Darley may be of the same view; that is his call.

I will say that I absolutely acknowledge the spirit with which the Attorney-General has engaged with us in the debate. I am not privy to what goes on in the Liberal party room, but I am hoping it was a robust debate. I absolutely accept that that was the process they went through, but it does not temper my disappointment. We have a large number of stakeholders who have been eagerly awaiting this legislation.

I am getting emails every other day saying, 'I'm trying to find a house now and I've got my dog or my cat and I can't find one, and when is your bill going to pass, so when can I help you?' I need members to put their position on the record because I need to give feed back to all those stakeholders about how people indicated they would vote. I will rise again shortly and quickly go through some of this information, but it would help me to know what the other parties are doing.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As much as I would like, in the closing days of the Hon. Mark Parnell, to give him a last, parting gift, the Labor Party feels that there needs to be a little bit more investigation into this before we dive headfirst into changing this legislation. We do appreciate and see your intent, and we do appreciate that something needs to be done in this space, but we do feel that there are a few shortcomings in this bill that is before the parliament at this time. Like always, it is an amazing thing that you bring these items to the chamber, but we feel that it is not quite ready yet in its current form.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be withdrawing my five amendments, and I will be opposing the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: This was extraordinarily difficult for me. I think during the second reading debate we canvassed the issues around this bill. There was some sympathy to what the Hon. Mark Parnell was trying to achieve certainly in terms of two aspects of the bill, firstly in terms of making it easier to rent with a pet, but secondly in terms of not having to give pets up for adoption or otherwise as a result of being unable to secure rental properties because of pets.

During that contribution, I think I expressed sentiments to the effect that I was hoping that there could be some sort of resolution reached on this. I understand the sentiment behind the bill, but we were not entirely convinced at the time that the model before us was the ideal one to do that, and we were hoping there would be further consultation. We were heartened by the Attorney's comments at the time that there would be some further consultation on this to see if we could land somewhere. I do note that in our discussions in our party we have a lot of concerns about the rights of landowners being impinged through some of the measures that were proposed in this bill.

I think it is fair to say that we are in agreement with the opposition and the government insofar as this bill, whilst its intent is admirable and very good in my view, it is extraordinarily difficult, especially when we are dealing with the rights of landowners versus tenants and the issue of pets. Whilst I also would love nothing more than to offer a parting gift to the Hon. Mark Parnell and say that we can support this bill wholeheartedly as is, or with some amendments that would make it better, unfortunately that is just not the case for SA-Best and I do not think we have been able to land on something that would be acceptable to us either.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Again, I really appreciate the intent of what the Hon. Mark Parnell has been trying to do here. I am just going to be a bit more blunt, which is what I am. This legislation would have had unintended consequences in terms of renters, because, once again, it is eroding the rights of property owners.

When property owners call me about certain things and problems that they have, I often tell them, 'You have to understand one thing: you actually don't really own what you think is your property, because the government will continue to apply legislation in all sorts of ways that take away your intrinsic rights to those properties. What you think you own, you may not own one day.' I think this one here, again, takes away the right of landlords to have a say about the types of animals they want to allow in their rental properties, and they should have that right at the beginning at the consultation stage.

I will say this: I reckon I have attended far more trashed houses in my previous career than any member here has, and often it is heartbroken mum and dad investors who have rented their properties to people who were quite reckless and also irresponsible. I am not saying that all people with pets are irresponsible. I will admit here that I am a property owner and I have allowed my tenants to have pets in there, but we have had discussions about it and I think that is the important thing.

What I fear is that if this legislation did get through, you would have a lot of confrontations and issues that would arise, not just for long-term rentals but also short-term rentals. The other thing that needs to be considered here is that landlords are not going to take this without saying, 'Okay, if you're going to take that right from me about having the ability to say no to people to come in to my property with animals, which may cause extensive damage, perhaps I will impose some kind of a disincentive,' and in that way they will lift the rent significantly.

I think that is the unintended consequence here: that in the end the only option left for the landlord is, 'Look, I want to have a say here and I will just lift the rent,' and that is what could possibly happen here. It is unfortunate that we have reached the situation in our society where there is a lot of intolerance for people who would like to have their pets with them in rental properties, but you also have to look at the realistic side of the people who own those properties, invest a lot of money in there and provide those rentals for tenants, and they do not want to place their properties at risk of significant damage.

I have seen significant damage to properties and almost all of them have had issues with pets that have caused significant damage and, as a result of that, the landlords have been left greatly out of pocket and consequently have not been able to recover that. I will note that in Victoria, there were further amendments made last week to their legislation which now enables tenants to knock holes in walls of places without getting consent from the landowner. Well, you may say—Mr Stephens seems to think that it is a minor thing but if you own a property, it is actually quite serious.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Frank, I am on your page here, mate!

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. I. Pnevmatikos: We are not debating the issue now.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No, if you don't mind, I am just talking—

The Hon. I. Pnevmatikos interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Mr Pangallo is on his feet.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. As I said, it is a pity that there are some members in this place here who prefer to heckle you if you do not agree with them. I am sorry, that is the point I am trying—

The Hon. I. Pnevmatikos: We are in agreement with you, Frank. We have already said that.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I know you have but you are heckling me. Anyway, just to finish my points, I am not going to be supporting that.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank members for putting their positions on the record which has done two things: it has avoided the need for a third reading division and it has also avoided the need for a lengthy committee stage because with those views being so clear, whilst I will very briefly explain what we were trying to do with our amendments, I will not need to move each one of them, just as the Hon. John Darley had indicated he will not be moving his.

I will say again that I am disappointed that this is the outcome. I think the Labor government in Victoria had the right idea, and their legislation is working well. In relation to the Hon. Frank Pangallo's contribution, it is a fundamental difference of opinion that I have with him over how we balance the rights of the owners of bricks and mortar compared to the rights of someone to enjoy a homely home.

It is a fundamental question and it goes to the heart of all our residential tenancies law. There are some people for whom it is all about the bricks and mortar, it is all about the owner and, in the honourable member's words, the rights of landlords to dictate. I am a lot more nuanced. I think that our laws need to reflect that what is one person's bricks and mortar is someone else's home, and that home very often includes a pet.

Very briefly, the Law Society set out a number of concerns they had with the bill. The amendments that I had drafted and filed are to address those concerns. For example, the Law Society suggested that the definition of 'pet' be included in the bill. They also wanted to make sure there was no confusion with assistance dogs, assistance animals, therapeutic animals and pets.

We took advice from parliamentary counsel and we figured that there was no great benefit in doing that because, in statutory interpretation, words have their natural meanings. I know, for example, that one of the Hon. John Darley's amendments was to focus in on cats and dogs. Well, there are pets that are not cats and dogs, so we were satisfied that, provided we made it clear that we are not talking about guide dogs or therapeutic dogs or assistance dogs, 'pet' did not need to be further defined.

The Law Society raised another issue in relation to clause 4, which we accepted, and an amendment on file deletes that clause. The Law Society also queried the requirement for applications to be given personally to the landlord. They point out, quite rightly, that that is out of step with practices that have been adopted, especially since COVID-19, so amendment No. 3 on file deleted that requirement for personal service.

The Law Society also pointed out that we had not in the act required the applicant to specify the breed or the size of the pet. I make the point that these matters could have been dealt with in the prescribed form, but nevertheless we made it clear in our amendment that information about the pet was required to be detailed in the application by the tenant.

The Law Society suggested that they thought it was inconsistent to have a provision that says a landlord must consent, and then the bill goes on to say that if they do not respond at all that is deemed to be consent. We discussed this at length with parliamentary counsel. They disagreed that this was an inconsistency because without the provisions we put in the bill, a landlord might simply do nothing in response to an application to keep a pet, so our bill provided for deemed unconditional consent, and that is the underpinning of the right for the tenant to keep the pet unless it goes to the tribunal. That is the whole rationale of this bill—going to the tribunal seeking orders.

The Law Society also noted that the bill does not derogate from provisions in other acts in relation to the keeping of animals and they point out, for example, the Strata Titles Act and the Community Titles Act. That means that because we have not put that in the bill if the strata corporation rules say no pets, that effectively trumps the bill. We have not interfered with that because we figured that was a debate probably best left for another day. What we were after was for parliament to take a first step, which it has now decided not to.

The Law Society also pointed out that when it comes to landlords or their agents inspecting premises—the regular inspection—pets do need to be effectively controlled or restrained. In legislative drafting there are a range of words that are often used. We opted for a model that was for physical restraint rather than the words that are often used in dog legislation in particular, such as 'effective control', because effective control can be voice control.

There are plenty of people out there who think they can effectively control their animals with their voice when it turns out not to be the case. If you have someone who is inspecting the premises who is scared of dogs, then physical restraint makes a lot more sense. It might be a small, blind, toothless dog—just tie it up for the duration of the inspection. It is not that hard.

The Law Society also suggested a range of situations where they thought it should be mandatory for a tenant to notify the landlord. We again took advice on that and came to the conclusion that what the Law Society was asking for was unreasonable. For example, we do not think it was reasonable for a pet owner to even know what a zoonotic disease was, let alone whether their pet had one of them. It is my recollection that we may have some vets in the chamber who could probably wax lyrical on that topic.

The Law Society was also suggesting that there were various other events that might need mandatory notification. Of course, unless you spell out what those events are it is inconsistent with mandatory notification. They have to know exactly what it is they have to notify. We could not accept tenants being put in a position of having to make a decision on things they did not understand or where they were not entirely sure of what their obligations were.

The Hon. John Darley has indicated that he is not going to move his amendments, but I would like to thank him for his serious consideration of the bill. Unfortunately, the amendments were not acceptable to us; I think the honourable member knows that, so he is now not moving them and not supporting the bill.

One thing he had included was a pet bond. Members who have been here for a while would realise that we have debated pet bonds in the past. They are controversial. I do not support them, but we recognise that in some circumstances they might actually be an appropriate response. However, it is not something we think the landlord should be able to impose; we think it is something we would leave to the tribunal to decide. If they thought that was a reasonable condition to giving permission for someone to keep a pet, that there be an additional bond, that could be an order of the tribunal but not a mandatory order of the landlord.

For those members who were here when we last debated pet bonds, I think the only reason it did not end up passing this parliament was because of its retrospective nature. You could have someone who already had permission to keep a pet, and the new law comes in and they have to find another thousand dollars for a pet bond on the renewal of the lease. That was regarded as unfair.

I did want to put that on the record because we do take the Law Society submissions very seriously. They were on the money, I think, with a couple of their suggestions but we took alternative legal advice. I do not think they were quite right on some others. Again, I thank the Hon. John Darley for his amendments, but because of the fact that everyone has now put their position on the record I will not need to divide. I also do not need to move these amendments to each clause, and that will speed things up.

However, I do not want people to think that my reasonable accommodation of the lateness of the hour has tempered my disappointment. I know there are a lot of people out there who rent who have pets, or who have pets and cannot rent; they are living in their cars, they are giving their pets to the RSPCA, they are relinquishing them because they cannot find rental accommodation that allows them to keep their pets. The RSPCA and other animal groups are going to be terribly disappointed in this decision.

We will see whether my replacement comes back with another model but, as we have been discussing with voluntary euthanasia, the Victorians were the first and it has been shown to have worked. The Victorians were first with renting with pets, and it is working. There are journal articles that people can look up. It was clearly an important amendment and it is going well in Victoria. It is only a matter of time before we change the law here; I am just disappointed that it is not going to be tonight.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 5) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (23:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Third reading negatived.

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