HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-06-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Residential Tenancies (Protection of Prospective Tenants) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 May 2023.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:35): I rise to place some remarks on the record in relation to this particular piece of legislation, which the Liberal Party is supporting, as honourable members would already be aware from our contributions in the House of Assembly. This particular bill has arisen because we are clearly in the middle of a housing crisis, including a rental crisis, in South Australia.

We have probably the tightest rental market in Australia. We know that following COVID a lot of people came to South Australia because it was, and had the reputation of being, a very safe place for people to live. Part of the impact of COVID, as well, is that people have been looking to new forms of dwellings to live in, so there has been a lot of movement in a fairly short space of time in the housing market generally.

As part of that we have seen a lot of people who were landlords who have sold their properties to owner-occupiers—and there is nothing wrong with that at all. We on this side of the house, in particular, are very much in favour of home ownership as a way to build wealth over the long term and develop some assets to give people independence.

In July last year, the Liberal Party provided a 10-point plan to assist people in the rental market as well as people who might potentially be experiencing homelessness—and I will talk about some of those elements in a minute. However, this particular bill is part of the government's response. It is a piece of legislation that will do a few things, but it is not something I would describe as a significant piece of legislation. It provides for prescribed information that cannot be requested of a prospective tenant, it provides some protections around tenant information, and it prohibits rent bidding and third parties charging prospective tenants fees for an assessment or rating of their suitability for tenancy.

In August last year, the Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs convened a forum with stakeholders in the rental sector, which led to a discussion paper covering a broad range of issues that was released for consultation late last year and closed on 16 December. I note that particular discussion paper was very broad, and that is a good thing, because there are a lot of things often raised with members of parliament in relation to the Residential Tenancies Act, and we were quite hopeful there would be some broader attempts to provide some changes to the laws, something which has not taken place for some time.

There were a number of items in that discussion paper released by the government—including longer tenancies, residential bonds, rent bidding, rooming houses and shared accommodation, renting with pets, housing standards and retaliatory evictions, safety modifications and minor changes, start of tenancy requirements, domestic violence, water billing, illegal drug activity, third-party payments and modernisation of language—so the government's announcement, made in February, was disappointing. There was a series of three announcements, all in the same week in February, to demonstrate that they were actually doing something in this space, albeit something fairly minimal, but they have not attempted any of the difficult issues at all.

We have done our due diligence, as we do, and met with a number of stakeholders in relation to this piece of legislation and I would like to thank all of them. In particular, there is a coalition of SACOSS, Better Renting and Uniting Communities, which has also raised that there are a number of issues that have not been addressed in this discussion paper. We have also had discussions with the Real Estate Institute of South Australia and the Landlords' Association of South Australia.

I do note that the Real Estate Institute have a code of conduct and they state that rent bidding is prohibited by their code of conduct. They tend to represent professional landlords or those organisations that are managers, rather than individuals or what are often called private landlords. Within their code of conduct, organisations cannot be members of them and engage in that practice, therefore they say it does not take place very often. The Landlords' Association have similar views and also state that it does not take place very often, which sort of begs the question of why there have not been other issues that have been raised through this piece of legislation that are more pressing.

The issue that has been raised as the largest concern by landlords are changes to rental bonds. In our discussion paper, we did flag that there needs to be some discussion about rental bonds. My understanding is that in most other jurisdictions bonds are equivalent to four weeks' rent. The government is using regulation to increase the bonds and that is the biggest concern that those landlord organisations have on this particular matter.

There are also concerns that have been raised about the timeliness of processing of bonds to cover arrears. This has been an issue for some time, and I think it is very relevant. You hear lots of complaints about those particular processes. That is not a matter that would be addressed through legislation necessarily, but I do raise it as in the current climate we need to make sure those processes are happening as efficiently as possible.

In relation to the details of the bill, clause 3 inserts section 47B, which prohibits landlords or agents from requesting a prospective tenant disclose prescribed information, which is to be set by regulation with penalties attached. The prescribed information is not yet determined, but the government has indicated that there will be consultation to determine this. Possible prescribed information may include anything about an applicant that relates to a protected attribute under equal opportunity legislation.

Clause 4 of the bill would insert sections 52A and 52B. Section 52A would require a landlord or agent to advertise premises for rent at a fixed price, prohibiting price range advertising and inviting higher bidders, with penalties similarly attached. The new section 52B would prevent third parties charging prospective tenants for background checks and assessment or rating of their suitability for a tenancy if it is based on an offer of higher rent, essentially paying for a higher rating.

Clause 5 of the bill would insert Part 4 Division 14A—Tenant information, which contains provisions relating to privacy of tenant information. Specifically, a landlord or agent must destroy tenancy data three years after the end of a tenancy. Unsuccessful tenants' data must be destroyed within 30 days of a tenancy agreement on that property being executed, unless the prospective tenant consents to their data being held for up to six months to support further applications.

We do support the bill and are grateful to all the stakeholders for putting forward their points of view. I think they are all very fair and reasonable. In relation to the 10-point plan, there are some things that the government took up since that was released in July last year, but there are some things that I think deserve further exploration and some of these I would put in the urgent basket.

Firstly, we did indicate that we had a lot of complaints by prospective tenants about the frustration they have with applying for numerous private rental properties before they finally find one, if at all. We, therefore, have suggested that a template form for use by all real estate agents could simplify the application process, and that could be a form that has components to it that landlords or landlord agencies could add things to, but just to have some form of template process rather than people having to go through that frustrating process of constantly re-adding information that they have already done.

Secondly, we also urge that the government expand the expansion of the domestic and family violence crisis accommodation program from 31 to 100 beds, which we announced on 6 March 2022 in the election campaign. That was to utilise $1.133 million of funding from the Homelessness Prevention Fund until 2023. The domestic violence crisis accommodation program is something that the former Marshall Liberal government commenced in 2018. It has been enormously successful because it provides better outcomes for families at a lower cost compared to the emergency accommodation. I note that the Minister for Human Services does talk about the emergency accommodation program on radio. Well, this is one way to get the funding in the right forms of accommodation at a much better price with a much better outcome.

Similarly to the domestic violence program—which I should say, rather than placing people in hotel-motel accommodation at a high nightly cost, what we were able to do in government was repurpose 31 properties so that they were used for families escaping from domestic and family violence. That meant they could leave very, very quickly, as those were dedicated places for them.

Clearly, living in a dwelling, even if it is in a unit, means that families have access to a kitchen, laundry, separate sleeping areas, and living and play spaces, rather than being in hotels and motels, which are often near main roads. They lack facilities, they are cramped and people often feel unsafe because of some of the other guests. So, similarly, we have proposed that this immediate accommodation program should be expanded to other family households in a similar model where specific places are set aside for families. Again, the cost is much lower, avoids the use of hotel-motel accommodation, and this is a much better outcome for family groups with children.

We also put in that policy that the affordable community housing land tax exemption program should be recommitted to, which was budgeted for to enable landlords to rent out their properties at 75 per cent of market rent in exchange for a land tax holiday for five years. I note that in one of Shelter SA's newsletters there are 15 homes being utilised through its partnership with Cornerstone Housing, so that is a very similar concept. Given the current crisis, this should be rebooted.

We also said that those people who stay in hotels and motels long term should be able to access private rental assistance by including this accommodation under the Residential Tenancies Act. I am aware that the SA Housing Authority receives requests from time to time to provide bonds into hotels, normally in the city, for provision of medium-term rental stays, which they are not able to do under their rental policy. This type of rental arrangement could offer an affordable option for customers who are having difficulty accessing the private rental market. If bond guarantees can be lodged with Consumer and Business Services, the authority could amend their policy to provide for this type of arrangement.

So we think some of these areas are within the remit of the bill that is open before us and others are government policy that the government could choose to change, and we would urge them to look into those rather than dismissing them. With those remarks, I support the bill.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (15:49): I rise to speak today in support of the Residential Tenancies (Protection of Prospective Tenants) Amendment Bill. All of us in this chamber here today will know people who are currently struggling, or have struggled in the last few years in particular, to secure a rental property in our electorates. If anyone here does not think they know someone in this boat, there is no need to look beyond the walls of this building. I would recommend they check in with their younger staffers and see how they are faring in Adelaide's rental market.

We have one of the tightest rental markets in the country, with a vacancy rate of less than 1 per cent—the lowest of all Australian capital cities. Rental bond data reviewed by SACOSS showed rents for two-bedroom units newly tenanted in the September quartile of 2022 were 12.1 per cent higher than at the same time the previous year. Rents for three-bedroom houses were 15.8 per cent higher. Comparatively, the general inflation rate for Adelaide was 8.4 per cent.

This rental increase has resulted in many South Australians experiencing housing stress for the first time. As is often the case, the most vulnerable in our society and those on the lowest incomes have been the most affected. According to SACOSS, 60 per cent of South Australian renter households were in the bottom two income quintiles. Of these low income renters, 29.9 per cent were in housing stress. Nearly all these renters were in the private market.

Believe Housing Australia (formerly AnglicareSA Housing) conducted a rental affordability snapshot survey in March of this year. The survey found only 1 per cent of rentals are affordable for someone working full-time on the minimum wage. For those on JobSeeker or Youth Allowance, the outlook is even more grim. The survey found that a couple living on the Age Pension could also only afford 1 per cent of rentals. It is worth remembering that the Age Pension is the most generous of all government payments. Older people are becoming more vulnerable to housing stress and homelessness due to declining rates of home ownership and an increase in the number of those retiring with a mortgage.

A shortage of affordable housing means that these vulnerable groups, who are a significant proportion of the population, are now competing in the same rental market as those on higher incomes. It also means that new categories of vulnerable people are created. Young people and young families are prevented from taking their first steps to independence. There are many who are experiencing housing insecurity for the first time in their lives.

In the last few years, various media outlets have reported on the high numbers of people attending open inspections. Properties often attract lines around the block and dozens of potential tenants. Skyrocketing costs and availability shortages have resulted in a market where rent bidding has become commonplace. There has also been an increase in requests for tenancy information that exceeds what a tenant would reasonably be expected to provide.

This bill addresses some of these immediate concerns in the market, to grant greater protection to tenants and prevent the exploitation of the basic human right to shelter. This bill takes the first step towards standardising rental application forms. It provides information to be prescribed in regulations that must not be requested of a prospective tenant. It also increases protection for what tenant information is collected.

As house prices have increased, so too has the amount required to be paid in bond moneys. This presents a significant challenge to those already struggling to secure affordable housing. This bill will create a more affordable bond option by raising the threshold under which a four-week rental bond is available. Finally, the bill bans the advertisement of rental properties as a price range rather than a fixed price and prohibits landlords or agents from inviting higher rent offers.

Owning an investment property is not a licence to print money. There are sufficient supports for landlords in our system. I should know, I am a landlord. Those same supports do not exist for renters, despite their more precarious position. The market should not be left so unregulated that people are left open to exploitation.

Housing insecurity creates a state of perpetual anxiety and fear at the most basic existential level. When someone is preoccupied with one of the most fundamental requirements for human existence, that being the need to secure shelter, it is understandable that they do not have full capacity to operate at their best in other areas of their life. In this way, an unfair rental system keeps people down and throws up unnecessary barriers to class mobility.

The roof over your head, the floor beneath your feet, the bed you sleep in every night, and the kitchen you cook in every day are literally the physical foundation you build your life on. When you struggle to find housing for yourself and for your family, your ability to fully participate in society is severely damaged. There are compounding effects on physical and mental health, on families and relationships. Some of these impacts, particularly on children, can last a lifetime.

I appreciate that people will want to own properties—that is a feature of the system we live in—but that ownership should be measured, and it needs to be subject to controls, so that people are not held to ransom by their rental prices. This bill represents the first step in the process of improvement.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (15:56): In speaking to this bill, I just want to clear up one thing first. I notice there has been previous commentary in some newspapers that circulate around our town about who owns things and who does not, which seemed a bit odd. For some reason, I was reported in that as being unavailable or the number of homes I might own was unavailable, or something like that. I do not own homes. I have one home. I think in clarifying that, it adds a few things, which is some other speakers have identified quite clearly that they are a landlord, and I think that really starts to underline a point which we need to make in this debate.

We can all acknowledge up-front that there is clear and unambiguous evidence that everyone can acknowledge. The state of the rental market is a national problem, it is a state problem, it is a local problem. You can turn on the news, you can read the local paper, or you can just sit down with your mate and have a cup of coffee, but at some point I am betting—unless you are maybe a little more exciting than I am—the state of housing and how it affects your life or their life or someone's life that they know is probably going to come up.

It might come up in a form of benefit—someone has made some sort of profit on a house that they own or houses that they own—or it might come up that they are worried about their children; are they going to be able to afford a house? If you sit around a coffee shop for long enough you will hear things like that.

South Australia's rental vacancy rates are at a historic low. You might hear other speakers talk to that—certainly, some have already made that point. Worse than that, prices for rentals are at an all-time high. If you own multiple properties you might see that as great, but also if you own multiple properties you might see that as a problem for your children who do not own a property. In any event, both sides of that argument make pretty clear that there is a supply problem here. Those most vulnerable in our community to the pressures of a supply problem to create the competitive market are going to be squeezed the most, or the hardest.

Rent bidding, either as a cause or an effect of those problems, is probably going to add to what is already your supply nightmare. We have clear evidence and a cohesive understanding of the problem. I think the fact that just about every form of government, from local right up to federal, is taking steps in regard to the rental market really underlines how significant the level of understanding of the problem is.

So what are we doing here? We are going to take another step in the direction of acknowledging what is happening in our rental market: the enormous challenges that are being faced by those who are simply seeking to meet one of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This bill reflects the immediate need to take some action. The action identified today arises out of what has been, I think, a pretty comprehensive review process that our government has undertaken and I understand that this is only stage 1 of a pretty significant rollout of what we are going to see.

I think it also probably behoves me to underline that it is in keeping with the promises that the Malinauskas government made at the past election. So what are we going to do today? This bill aims to prohibit rental properties from being advertised at a price range rather than at a specific price. Other speakers have spoken to that—I will not repeat what they had to say—but what does that mean? The aim of this bill is to end rent bidding. Further than this, the bill should also prevent landlords or any agent of theirs inviting higher rent offers.

Why would that work? There will be a large penalty put in place to deter such conduct. We know that penalties put in place to deter certain conduct work. A maximum amount of $20,000 is being put in place, with an additional expiation fee of $1,200 per offence. Furthermore, there are provisions relating to third parties intended to address conduct involving, say, a prospective tenant who wants to rig the game a little and say they have a better background check or an assessment rating and might want to offer a little more money. We are putting in checks around that too.

This should prevent prospective tenants having to pay for their background checks and the practice of offering higher rents is being prohibited to acquire that lease, but we are not limiting, if you like, the range of this bill to the deterrence of rent bidding alone. We are also extending this deterrence to further areas. The amendment bill we have here today also provides for prescribed information that cannot be requested of a prospective tenant.

What does that mean? We are standardising what can and should appear on the form that is provided by a tenant. In this regard, it is worth highlighting that there will be further targeted consultation on the information that is to be prescribed, but some of the items which may potentially be included are, for instance, the applicant's rental bond history, a statement from a credit or bank account containing daily transactions, and any information about the applicant that relates to a protected attribute under equal opportunity legislation.

Furthermore, this bill aims to protect tenant information by prohibiting information from being disclosed without the consent of the tenant. This information obtained for a successful tenant is required to be destroyed after three years, and the information obtained for a tenant who is unsuccessful is required to be destroyed within 30 days of a tenancy agreement being executed. This bill also puts in place a maximum penalty for the failure to do any of those things. Again, we see that deterrence factor come in for people who have failed to do that to a maximum of $20,000 and an expiation fee of $1,200.

Lastly, this bill aims to take steps in the area of residential tenancy bonds. The Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos went to this to some extent and it is certainly an area which I am pretty happy to elaborate on further. The current status is that where the rent is $250 or greater, then six weeks' worth of rent rather than four weeks can be sought by a landlord as a bond. This applies both regionally and in terms of metro. Obviously, I think for both instances $250 a week is becoming increasingly rare, to put it lightly. In any event, very few of those seeking to rent have six weeks' worth of rent to hand; it is becoming pretty clear that that is maybe a bit of an egregious amount.

In line with the election promises taken by the Malinauskas government to the last election, this bill raises the bond threshold to $800, to ensure that for the majority of rental properties in South Australia in reality only a four-week bond will be required. Certainly we will see how that will progress.

That is a pretty moderate change, but probably the most simple of changes that can be made to assist with up-front charges and keep bonds at a four-week expectation. What kinds of savings might that look at? Currently, for instance, if you had a unit in metropolitan Adelaide and you were looking at a bond amount of $2,130, it would save you $710. In regional South Australia, if you had a bond amount of $1,590 you would save $530. Consistent with equity principles and how that will apply, I think that is pretty fair. I think that no landlord will miss out on that small amount of money in the short term, but certainly any person fronting up to rent will be pretty happy with seeing $710 or $530 respectively that they do not have to find.

It will also have a degree of retrospectivity, so the new bond amount will apply to any bond paid or payable under an agreement entered into on or after 1 April 2023—an interestingly chosen date, but I will leave that one there. Any bond paid before this date will remain lodged with Consumer and Business Services (CBS) until the conclusion of the tenancy agreement. The reforms in this bill represent the Malinauskas government's priorities and immediate actions. It is important to underline that. It is about priorities; they were outlined in the housing policies taken by the Malinauskas then opposition to the election and now form part of the immediate actions, that we are taking to rental problems. It will not be the last thing we do in this space.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Good.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: We will be introducing further amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act later this year. The Hon. Mr Simms, I hear your interjection: it is good. It is good to hear that it is good. The CBS currently is preparing a report based on, I think, 5,000 responses and 150 submissions received through the YourSAy public consultation recently performed. I hope you made a submission, the Hon. Mr Simms.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: I did actually.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Excellent—we are glad to hear that.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: You can't find it on the website; it's all confidential.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Oh dear; I won't address that. There is more to come as there is more to deal with in this space. Just a few things are renting with pets, longer tenancies, evictions and further regulations around deterrents are required. I look forward to welcoming further reforms later this year. I commend the immediate action being taken in this bill, and I look forward to further debates with such members as the Hon. Mr Simms, perhaps over a coffee or maybe in here.

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (16:08): There should be broad agreement in this place that the current state of the rental market merits action by government. Indeed, reforms to tenancy laws have been initiated by governments right across the nation, so that belief would be in keeping with the demonstrated efforts of other jurisdictions to bring change in this important area.

Responding to immediate community need is the intent of this amendment bill. Its provisions have arisen out of the comprehensive review process our government has undertaken. This process identified a range of areas for potential change, and this amendment bill focuses on immediate priorities for us to act upon. This amendment bill is one part of the Malinauskas government's plan for A Better Housing Future, responding to some of the challenges being experienced by many South Australians in the rental market.

I believe it is true to say that those challenges are well understood by this government. We recognise the severe nature of the current market circumstances and their impact on our community, particularly on people who may already be disadvantaged and vulnerable.

Demand for rental housing is strong and South Australia's residential vacancy rates are at historically low levels. The supply shortage of rental properties has put upward pressure on rental prices and it has created an environment where renters are struggling to secure rental properties in a highly competitive market. These circumstances have also led to the practice of rent bidding and to requests for information being asked of tenants that exceed what a tenant should reasonably be expected to provide.

The amendment bill prohibits rental properties being advertised at a price range rather than at a specific price, and prevents landlords, agents or third-party organisations from inviting higher rent offers. Provisions relating to third parties are intended to address conduct involving prospective tenants being charged fees for background checks, and an assessment or rating of their suitability being provided to the landlord or agent.

This is in view of reports that in some instances prospective tenants who were paying for the background check and offering higher rent have been afforded a higher rating. The amendment bill prohibits rent bidding by the landlord or agent, and it prevents a person in trade or commerce from providing an assessment or rating of a prospective tenant that is based on an offer of higher rent, and disallows a person from receiving or requiring a prospective tenant to pay for an assessment or rating of their suitability for a tenancy. A maximum penalty of $20,000 is proposed to apply, with an expiation fee of $1,200.

The amendment bill also provides for prescribed information that cannot be requested of a prospective tenant. It also takes first steps towards standardising what should appear on rental application forms. There will be further targeted consultation on the information that is to be prescribed which may potentially include the applicant's rental bond history, a statement from a credit or bank account containing daily transactions, and any information about the applicant that relates to a protected attribute under equal opportunity legislation. Exemptions will apply where certain information is required to determine tenant eligibility for the provision of housing assistance.

This amendment bill contains measures to protect tenant information by prohibiting tenants' information from being disclosed without their consent or, as required by law, the tenancy agreement, a court or a tribunal. The information obtained for a successful tenant is required to be destroyed after three years and, for unsuccessful applicants, within 30 days of a tenancy agreement being executed. However, such persons are able to consent to their information being held for up to six months to support looking for another tenancy. The amendment bill also regulates the disclosure and destruction of prospective tenant and tenant information provided for the purposes of applying for a tenancy. A maximum penalty of $20,000 is proposed to apply, with an expiation fee of $1,200 for this.

The fourth immediate priority announced as part of the Malinauskas government's plan for A Better Housing Future relates to more affordable residential tenancy bonds, which has been progressed through amendments to the Residential Tenancies Regulations. Because of across the board rental price increases, renters of even moderately priced housing are currently required to provide a six-week rental bond rather than four weeks. This can present great difficulty, particularly for those in challenging financial circumstances.

Currently, landlords can claim residential bonds equivalent to a maximum of six weeks' rent when the weekly rent is $250 or greater. Only properties falling below that threshold have a four-week bond attached. Increasingly fewer properties fall below this threshold. The bond threshold will now be raised to $800 to ensure that, for the majority of rental properties in South Australia, only a four-week bond will be required. This change will reduce up-front costs for tenants. The new bond amount will apply to any bond paid or payable under an agreement entered on or after 1 April 2023. Any bond paid before this date will remain lodged with CBS until the conclusion of the tenancy agreement.

Consumer and Business Services is currently preparing a report based on the 5,000 responses and the 150 submissions that were received through the YourSAy public consultation. The reforms in this amendment bill represent the Malinauskas government's immediate priorities. We are committed to delivering better outcomes for tenants and landlords in a range of areas, which is why we will be introducing further amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act later this year.

Issues addressed through further legislation may include renting with pets, longer tenancies and retaliatory evictions, for example. We know it is important to strike the right balance between protecting the interests of tenants and those of property owners, and the extensive consultation we have undertaken will help to guide our further decision-making. We know that this is an area in which a responsible government takes action. Our community certainly deserves the better outcomes this amendment bill aims to promote and support.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:14): I am standing up today to support the Residential Tenancies (Protection of Prospective Tenants) Amendment Bill 2023. The Malinauskas government is reforming the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 to better meet the needs of today's rental housing market, improve protections for renters and ensure landlords can continue to manage properties effectively. Rental reforms have been initiated in all Australian jurisdictions and the Malinauskas Labor government will ensure that South Australian tenants are not left behind by implementing regulatory safeguards that protect households.

Last year, as part of the reform of the RTA, the Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs announced a review of the RTA, with the release of a discussion paper marking the start of the most comprehensive review of the RTA since 2014. However, the Malinauskas government has identified immediate priorities to be introduced now to assist renters with affordability, protect tenants' rights and privacy and improve the housing outcomes for people in South Australia through our recently announced housing package, A Better Housing Future.

As the Premier has said, every South Australian deserves to have a roof over their head and to be safe and secure in a place they call home. The government recognises the extraordinary pressure the current housing market is placing on vulnerable South Australians. The bill is one part of the Malinauskas government's plan for a better housing future, which provides an immediate response to the challenges being experienced by many South Australian renters.

South Australia's economy has been performing well and our population has been growing more strongly in recent years, with more people moving to South Australia from other states. This has contributed to strong demand for housing across all sectors and in both metropolitan areas and regional towns. South Australia's residential vacancy rates remain at historically low levels. The supply shortage of rental properties has caused rents to increase substantially and has created an environment where renters are struggling to find rental properties in an increasingly competitive market.

The shortage of rental properties has also led to rent bidding and requests for tenancy information that exceeds what a tenant would reasonably expect to provide. This bill will address the issue of rent bidding and other priorities identified as part of the government's plans for a better housing future, including taking the first step towards standardising rental application forms by considering the type of information on the rental application form and protecting tenant information.

The bill proposes priority changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 as part of the government's broader housing strategy. The amendment bill provides for prescribed information that cannot be requested of a prospective tenant, protects tenant information and prohibits rent bidding and third parties charging prospective tenants fees for an assessment or rating of their suitability for tenancy.

The amendment bill provides for information to be prescribed in the regulations that must not be requested of a prospective tenant. There will be further targeted consultation on the information prescribed, which may potentially include the applicant's rental bond history, a statement from a credit or bank account containing daily transactions and any information about the applicant that relates to a protected attribute under equal opportunity legislation.

After consultation with key stakeholders on the draft bill, based on feedback that was received, we have included a technical amendment to ensure the intent of the exemption under section 47B(2) is intended to only apply to a landlord or agent who is also a housing assistance provider to ensure the prohibition does not interfere with a housing assistance provider requesting information required to determine a tenant's eligibility. The amendment bill proposes that an expiation fee of $1,200 or a maximum penalty of $20,000 apply for these offences.

In light of recent cybersecurity incidents where individuals' personal information was accessed, the amendment bill contains measures to protect tenant information by prohibiting tenant information from being disclosed without their consent or, as required by law, the tenancy agreement, a court or a tribunal. Tenant information for a successful tenant is required to be destroyed after three years and within 30 days of a tenancy agreement being executed for unsuccessful tenants. Prospective tenants are able to consent to their information being held for up to six months to support looking for another tenancy.

The amendment bill also regulates the disclosure and destruction of a prospective tenant and tenant information provided for the purposes of applying for a tenancy. Once again, the maximum penalty of $20,000 is proposed to apply, with an expiation fee of $1,200.

The amendment bill prohibits rental properties being advertised at a price range and prevents landlords or agents inviting higher rent offers. In addition, third parties, which often include websites facilitating tenant application forms, are prevented from engaging in rent bidding. Provisions relating to third parties are intended to address conduct involving prospective tenants being charged fees for background checks and an assessment or rating of their suitability being provided to the landlord or agent. There are reports that in some instances prospective tenants paying for the background check and offering higher rent have been afforded a much higher rating.

The amendment bill prohibits rent bidding by the landlord or agent, prevents a person in trade or commerce from providing an assessment or rating of a prospective tenant that is based on an offer of higher rent, and disallows a person from receiving or requiring a prospective tenant to pay for an assessment or rating of their suitability as a tenant. Once again, the maximum penalty will be $20,000, with an expiation fee of $1,200.

The fourth immediate priority announced as part of the Malinauskas plan, A Better Housing Future, relates to more affordable residential tenancy bonds, which has been progressed through the amendments to the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2010. Because of rent price increases, renters of even modestly priced houses are currently required to provide a six-week rental bond, rather than a four-week rental bond, a significant challenge for those looking for affordable housing.

Currently, landlords can claim residential bonds equivalent to a maximum of six weeks' rent when the weekly rent is $250 or greater, with only a four-week bond entitled to be claimed for properties falling below that threshold. Increasingly fewer properties fall below this threshold. The bond threshold will now be raised to $800 to ensure that for the majority of rental properties in South Australia only a four-week bond will be required.

This change will reduce the amount of up-front costs for tenants by between $500 and $1,600, depending on the amount of rent they are paying. For example, based on the median rental price for a house in the metro area, the current bond amount would be $2,790. With the changes we have made to the residential bond amount from 1 April, the bond amount will be $1,860, a saving for tenants of $930.

The new bond amount will apply to any bond paid or payable under an agreement entered on or after 1 April 2023. Any bond paid before this date will remain lodged with CBS until the conclusion of the tenancy agreement. The consultation on the RTA review has concluded, and Consumer and Business Services is currently preparing a report based on the 5,000 responses and 150 submissions the government received from the YourSAy consultation.

The reforms in this bill are the government's immediate priorities, with further consideration and consultation on the broader review of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995, which includes issues such as renting with pets, longer tenancies and retaliatory evictions, to take place before reforms are introduced to parliament later this year. The Malinauskas government is serious about delivering on better outcomes for tenants and landlords, which is why we will be introducing further amendments to the RTA later this year.

The government's announcement last year to begin the most comprehensive review of the RTA since 2014 seeks to ensure a modern, contemporary and robust legislative framework that strikes the right balance between protecting both tenant and landlord interests. The broader review that is currently underway will also consider how best to promote a sustainable residential tenancy sector that supports retaining existing landlords and attracting prospective landlords who are considering entering the sector.

Members may recall that the Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs kicked off an RTA review by hosting the South Australian RTA Review Forum on 3 August 2022 to hear firsthand the issues currently impacting the residential tenancy sector. In attendance at the forum were key interested parties and stakeholders, including SACOSS, Shelter SA, Uniting Communities, the Real Estate Institute of South Australia, the Landlords Association of South Australia, the South Australian Housing Authority, and the Department of Human Services.

The forum informed the development of the discussion paper, which invited comment on the priority issues identified by the sector. The discussion paper was released for public consultation through a six-week period between 8 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. Some of the issues identified to be included in the discussion paper for public consultation were:

renting with pets;

a crackdown on the practice of rent bidding;

the maximum bond amount;

standardising application forms;

whether the minimum notice required for not renewing a fixed term tenancy agreement should be increased;

new requirements for rooming houses and share accommodation;

housing standards;

tenants making safety modifications and minor changes; and

support for renters experiencing domestic violence.

The consultation received an enormous response, which reflects how important these issues are for tenants and landlords, with, as I previously said, over 5,000 people completing the YourSAy survey and over 150 submissions received. This feedback from that consultation will inform further policy development in discussions with stakeholders and interested parties to inform further RTA reform. With that, I seek that the bill receive the support of the chamber.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:26): I rise to also speak in favour of the bill, although of course the Greens do have some concerns that it does not go nearly far enough and will be moving a number of amendments to strengthen the bill. I will not talk about all the elements of the bill—they have been thoroughly ventilated through the government's speaking notes—but I will put on record some of the concerns the Greens have around the approach that has been taken by the Malinauskas government.

To say that their approach to this crisis has been slow and piecemeal is an understatement. There is no denying that South Australia is in the middle of a full-blown housing crisis. People are struggling to find rental accommodation and, once they finally find it, they just cannot afford it. The statistics in this area are bleak, but even more devastating are the human stories. Every day we see numerous stories of renters who were evicted for no reason whatsoever, whose rent has been increased for no reason, who have had poor maintenance standards in their homes. Winter is now upon us and many will be living in properties that have substandard energy standards.

Housing is a fundamental human right. Everybody deserves a decent home regardless of their location, their income, their employment or their health. What we are seeing at the moment in our country is very disturbing because rent is increasing faster than wages, and the Greens have been calling for the power balance between landlords and renters to be addressed. This bill is a very small step forward to protect renters, but it does not go far enough.

Every week there is a new report on the concerning statistics about the number of people queueing for rental homes due to low vacancy rates and the increase in rents faced by renters. On 17 May, Mission Australia released its Homelessness and Stable Housing Impact Report, which demonstrated that there was a 103 per cent increase in people living in impoverished homes, tents and rough sleeping, and a 40 per cent increase in people living in short-term temporary accommodation. This shows us what happens when people are in desperate need, but the housing crisis is actually impacting across all sectors of society and across all demographics.

The median rent of houses in SA has increased by 25 per cent over two years. Over the same period, the cost of renting a flat has increased by 18 per cent and in 2022 wages grew by only 3.5 per cent. Anglicare's Rental Affordability Snapshot of 18 March this year reveals that zero rental properties were affordable and available for a single person receiving JobSeeker, Youth Allowance or a parenting payment, just two rental properties were affordable and available for a couple receiving JobSeeker and only nine properties were affordable and available for a single person trying to live on the minimum wage in our state.

The Greens welcome the review that the Malinauskas government has been conducting into the Residential Tenancies Act. A few of the speakers on behalf of the government have referenced a round table that I was invited to attend. I was delighted to receive the invitation, along with the Hon. Mr Pangallo, but was surprised that my role was to sit as a silent observer on a separate table to the other participants, particularly given the significant work that I have done in this place in terms of advocating on rental reform.

As many in this place know, I do hold concerns about the secrecy that has surrounded this review, with the submissions and the report remaining secret, and I have a motion before this chamber to call on the government to release this information. If members of the community have gone to the effort of making a submission to an inquiry—and I disclose to you, Mr President, that I made a submission on behalf of the Greens—surely they should have this published on a government website and surely they should have access to the report and the findings of the review.

Months and months have passed and we still do not know what the review concluded and we still do not know what the key recommendations are. All we have is a very modest piece of legislation that addresses some small aspects of the rental crisis that we face. The Greens believe in transparency, and we have called for the government to release the review.

One of the elements in this legislation that I think is worth addressing in a bit more detail are the claims that have been made about rent bidding. Upon the introduction of this bill, the government issued a media release titled 'Rent bidding to be banned in South Australia' and the minister Andrea Michaels was quoted as saying:

The practice of rent bidding unfairly drives up prices and is contributing to the current rental crisis by making it more and more difficult for South Australians to find affordable rental accommodation.

I agree with the minister that rent bidding should be stamped out. Sadly, this bill does not achieve that objective. What the bill does is stop landlords or agents from soliciting rents above the asking price and we welcome that, but it does not prevent renters who can afford it from offering above the asking price. It does not prevent landlords or real estate agents from accepting a higher offer. Effectively, the bill only addresses half the problem of rent bidding; it does not ban it outright. It is a case of being all sizzle and no sausage.

To properly address the practice of rent bidding, I will be moving an amendment to ensure that no offers above the asking price can be accepted. This will ensure that renters know what they are getting into when they are applying for a rental property and it would effectively ban rent bidding, which the government claims was their intention.

We do welcome the focus of this bill on protecting renters' data and we are very pleased with the work that the government has done in that regard. Members will recall that there has been some media reportage around breaches of personal information recently and, in order to rent a property, renters are required to give over a substantial amount of their personal information.

At a forum that I held in the inner west on renting, many people spoke to me about the concerns they had about supplying their personal information to landlords, agents and third-party apps when they are not given any indication around how that information will be protected. One renter said to me that it was unreasonable to have to give a prospective landlord their car registration number, their dog chip number and other personal information before they had even been granted a lease on the property, and if they do end up renting the property what happens to their data?

This bill does ensure that renters' personal information must be destroyed after a stated amount of time, depending on their circumstances. Additionally, this bill allows for certain types of information to be prescribed, in effect ensuring that a prospective landlord or agent cannot ask for certain kinds of personal information. We welcome that, and I commend the government for taking that step.

It is worth noting here some of the concerns that have been expressed by the sector in terms of the approach the government has taken. A number of organisations have been calling for more protections, other than just the meagre action that the government is taking on rent bidding. Organisations such as Shelter SA, SACOSS, the Anti-Poverty Network and RSPCA have all made submissions, calling for reforms to make rentals more pet friendly, the abolition of no cause evictions, an opportunity for a tenant resource organisation to be established, minimum energy efficiency standards, mandatory disclosure of how much a property will cost to run, and of course vacancy taxes. To address these calls on behalf of the housing sector, I intend to move a number of amendments at the committee stage.

In addition to the amendment that I have already foreshadowed to ban rent bidding, I will also be moving amendments to require landlords to disclose conflicts of interest. This is an important transparency measure that would ensure that all conflicts of interest are out in the open, especially those that relate to the relationship between the landlord and their real estate agent.

One of the other elements of the bill that the Greens are seeking to change is to give the minister the power to apply rent controls so that the minister of the day can move quickly to deal with skyrocketing rent prices. Rent controls have been used in many places around the world, and indeed in Australia under the Menzies government. I know that some of the commentary around rent capping is that it is a radical concept. I would hardly call Mr Robert Menzies a bastion of the radical left, but his government did have rent controls in place to deal with some of the challenges that were being faced in the housing market at that time. It has been used in places like Spain, Berlin, New York and Ireland.

We are also moving to establish a default position in favour of renting with pets and, of course, we are moving to try to end no cause evictions because no cause evictions lead to tenants being fearful of raising issues with their landlord. It can create that power imbalance where a potential tenant is concerned about raising issues for fear their lease may not be renewed.

I should say that it is one of the elements I am very passionate about. These days I own my own home but I lived in a rental for years. I was in the rental market for about 15 years after I finished university up until I was in my mid-30s. During that time, I experienced a number of issues with rental tenancies that were less than satisfactory, such as toilets not working, holes in ceilings that were bringing mould into the home, problems with gas connections in the property; I even lived in a place that had a rat infestation at one point.

One of the real challenges that we faced as renters in that system was the fact that the landlord held all of the cards and always had the Damocles sword hanging over the tenant to say, 'If you kick up too much of a fuss, we may not renew your lease at the end.' It is one of the reasons why banning no cause evictions is so important. Sadly, it is not a feature of the government's bill but the Greens have an amendment to put it in.

We are also wanting to establish an independent tenants' advocacy organisation or a tenant advocate. We think that is really important and we are proposing that that could be funded from the interest on bond money, and we have an amendment to seek to do that. Such organisations already exist in other jurisdictions: New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and Queensland. It is worth noting that Victoria's was established 45 years ago, New South Wales' was established back in 1976 and Queensland establish theirs in 1986. These could play a really important role in advocating for tenants, particularly at a tribunal level, and also in pushing for research and awareness raising around some of the issues that renters face in our system.

So just to recap, we welcome this bill. We welcome the fact that the government is taking some action, but they are not going nearly far enough. I am moving a range of amendments to try to beef up this bill to see renters being given the protections that they deserve. I indicate that I plan to call divisions on my amendments.

I appreciate members of this place who have spoken to me about the position of their respective parties. I regret that no-one from the government has let me know their approach to the Greens' priorities, so I will just have to wait and see how that plays out. I do, as I say, appreciate the government taking some action on these issues, but we need to do better. We need to do so much better: so, Malinauskas government, get cracking.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:40): I rise on behalf of SA-Best to speak in support of this bill, the Residential Tenancies (Protection of Prospective Tenants) Amendment Bill. I note the Greens also have some amendments and I shall address them shortly.

May I begin by declaring my own interest in property. We do own a rental and, like so many other aspirational property owners, it was intended to be a wealth creation tool as we head into our retirement years of being self-funded. It is mortgaged, and during the period of stable low interest rates, along with excellent tenants, we have not raised the rent in almost 10 years, but just like many landlords around the country this now requires to be reviewed following the Reserve Bank's 12th straight rate rise.

Landlords are not all filthy rich as the Greens would want you to believe. Australia's rental market is almost entirely owned by mum-and-dad investors who will need to also bear the rising costs just to keep their investment viable. More financial pain on renters across the country will be unavoidable because of the current economic storm sweeping the country: the higher cost of living, the higher cost of housing with higher interest rates, higher power bills, higher costs to industry and business, and higher costs to primary producers; it is a sorry forecast.

Economists warn a national recession looms large. Banks are expecting large numbers to default on their mortgages now that lenders have come off their fixed low rates. There is undoubtedly a housing crisis in this country, and it seems to be getting worse by the day. We have a federal government that seems to be fixated on other less important matters than the one that truly counts for Australians, and that is keeping a roof over their heads or finding one that is affordable. I would have thought the time for an urgent national housing summit was long overdue. Australia has not had a national housing policy strategy since World War II, and the federal government needed to act with the states to form one.

As part of its housing package, the federal government announced a 15 per cent increase to the maximum rate of the Commonwealth Rent Assistance program. That is up $31 a fortnight, and this comes in from September as part of the government's recent budget, saying it would help more than a million low income Australians manage the rising cost of living. It is welcomed, but it may not be enough. However, the package, which also includes funding for 30,000 social and affordable homes over five years, is under threat if the Greens stick to their guns and insist on a nationwide freeze or cap on rents.

The Hon. Robert Simms has included this move as part of his amendments to this bill. While I do commend the Greens on their advocacy for more affordable housing measures, we will be opposing this amendment. Economists argue it would be a disincentive for further investment. Joey Moloney, from the Grattan Institute, says that while there is a case to limit how much rents can increase by in the current economic climate, it does come with big risks. The economist believes there could be an adverse effect to rental control by reducing people's tendency to move, thereby remaining long term in housing that does not suit their needs. If that happens and there is no flow of new housing for people to move into, he says it can increase the risk of homelessness in the community.

Bruce Djite of the Property Council recently wrote a compelling opinion piece arguing that laws that would dictate what you can and cannot do with your own property are not the solution to the housing crisis and that it was vital to keep the confidence of investors in turbulent times like this. He wrote, and I quote:

There is a big problem—the cost and risk of supplying rental property has materially increased. Potential investors right now are weathering higher interest rates and a significant decrease in their borrowing capacity…This kind of policy encourages investors to convert their rental properties into short term accommodation—but then they also want to tell you that you're not allowed to do that either. So, what happens? Investment slows. Play stops.

Mr Djite, like SA-Best, welcomed the state government's recent announcements to free up land for housing developments. He was also very supportive of tax measures by the federal government to encourage build-to-rent housing projects, which have been effective in countries like Singapore where 80 per cent of the population was able to buy a subsidised home through the government. Quoting Mr Djite again:

Removing the tax hurdles that acted as investment constraints for build-to-rent is a way to turbo charge the supply of rental stock in Australia without just relying on mum and dad investors to do all the heavy lifting for the market. It will also alleviate the strain on Governments to build taxpayer funded housing.

A recent study by Ernst and Young, commissioned by the Property Council, showed that by levelling the withholding tax rate, an extra 150,000 Australian rental properties could come online over the next decade. Regional Australia is also feeling the brunt with soaring prices and rental shortages. This has been accelerated by property owners turning to short-term accommodation rentals like Airbnb to increase their investment returns. Experts say the short-term answer is to build more homes.

Australia is not alone here. The housing crisis could impact 1.6 billion people by 2025, according to the World Bank. Shortages of land, lending, labour and materials are some of the factors fuelling the housing crisis. Sound familiar? The world needs to build 96,000 new affordable homes every day to house the estimated three billion people who will need access to adequate housing by 2030, according to the UN-Habitat.

Efforts to build more affordable homes are underway in countries including the United States, India, Scotland and Africa. As we know, of course, Australia is tagging along. In a study of 200 cities globally, 90 per cent were found to be unaffordable to live in, with the average home costing more than three times the average income.

A shortage of land, lending, labour and materials since the financial crisis in 2008 are the main causes for the US housing shortage, according to Moody's. This has driven up costs and cut the profit margins builders can take. They have less incentive to build more homes, 'particularly lower priced housing with lower margins', Moody's Analytics says.

Of course, it would apply here too. Not a week goes by that we hear of a number of building construction companies, homebuilders, going under. In fact it is an alarming figure—something like five or six, perhaps, a day around the country. That is a significant number. Of course, it again contributes to the fact that there is a slowdown in the construction of housing.

Rising housing costs, as we know, mean people have less money to spend on other essentials like groceries, bills, transport and looking after their families, so it is harder to get by. Unaffordable housing also fuels homelessness. An estimated 100 million people globally do not have a home, according to UN-Habitat, the United Nations program for human settlements and sustainable urban development, and a quarter live in conditions that are harmful to their health, safety and prosperity.

When housing costs climb, it also pushes up inflation, the price of goods and services and depresses economic growth. Lack of affordable housing forces low income workers to live farther away from their jobs, requiring long and costly commutes and reducing productivity, according to Moody's Analytics in its study. So, we are not alone.

The government's bill claims to reform rental laws and provide relief to tenants, including making bonds more affordable, banning rent bidding and protecting tenants' rights and information given to landlords, property owners and agents. They seek to improve tenure security. While it might be welcomed by the vast majority of renters who abide by the terms of their leases, landlords and property managers might now feel aggrieved by having to deal with recalcitrant tenants through the complicated and protracted maze of the SACAT system. Landlords were under-represented at the forum co-hosted by the Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs, the Hon. Andrea Michaels, and the commissioner, Mr Dini Soulio, last August.

I attended the forum with my colleagues the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Robert Simms, although we were relegated to the far back of the room, unable to contribute to any of the discussions; however, it appears that the forum was the genesis for this bill. While it is a start, it really provides bandaid solutions that fall well short of tackling the rental crisis, although we understand that another tranche of reforms is imminent.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Later in the year.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, imminent.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: End of the year.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, imminent, end of the year, whatever—it's coming. In the meantime, I would like to acknowledge some correspondence I received and I believe other MPs received from Jo Cullinan, a property manager. Jo is strongly opposed to lifting the threshold level of $800. If I can quote from the letter sent to us on 15 February 2023, Jo says:

Any raising of the bond threshold needs more consultation with stakeholders and needs to take into account the current timeframes for rent arrears, vacant possession and ultimate eviction. This timeframe at present is longer than 6 weeks and therefore exhausts any bond held on behalf of the property.

A SACAT hearing for example is at least a 3 week wait until it is listed and this is even asking for an urgent hearing. Making it a 4 week bond for majority of properties then the hearings need to be heard within 7 days.

Any increase in the threshold which would make the vast majority of rental properties only eligible for a 4 week bond would result in less protection for landlords and a strong likelihood that landlords will exit the investment market which they are already doing.

Jo goes on to say:

Why is this law not reflecting our median house prices?

This is a backward step for investors WHO ARE THE PEOPLE HOUSING PEOPLE! Without investors we would have a further CRISIS of accommodation and more people on the street, is this what is warranted?

SA have had the 6 week bond legislation for a long time now, why take a backward step?

Further it will push those properties marketed for between $700 to $800 over the $800 mark just to achieve the 6 week bond for security to the landlord.

It will also push insurance premiums for landlord insurance due to the reduction in bond.

I seek leave to table that document, if it has not been done already in another place.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: As I said earlier, Australia desperately needs to formulate a national housing policy, in concert with the states, as a priority. As to the amendments proposed by the Greens, I indicate that we will be supporting the move to establish an independent advocacy group for tenants and also supporting greater transparency in declarations of conflicts of interest by agents and landlords who might otherwise have other building or development interests.

However, we will not be supporting amendments designed to impose rent freezes and caps, for reasons as I have outlined already, and measures relating to keeping pets, which take control out of the hands of property owners who already must bear all the risks of any damage or financial losses.

In closing, I would like to address a recent article in The Advertiser which published addresses, images and details of investment homes owned by members, in relation to this bill. While we are all required to—and must—declare our interests in the registry of interests, this article was invasive to some members and an overreach in a bid to serve the paper's narrative in attacking or exposing their interests to attract condemnation and derision from its readers, which it succeeded in doing.

My investments are my personal business and are as a result of being productive in the workforce for more than 50 years. It is my understanding that some images included housing rented to victims of domestic violence. Publication of those images may have exposed those tenants to unwelcome attention, and the same applies to the owners of those properties.

These are challenging times when politicians are often subjected to menacing threats and concerns for their safety and that of the staff who also work in this place, which The Advertiser ironically highlighted in another story about antisocial behaviour in this precinct the other day. Politicians, like other citizens, have a right to privacy too, and I would hope that the media respects this in future.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:57): I thank honourable members for their contributions during the second reading debate. It is an issue that is obviously important to all of us in this chamber.

As has been outlined by a number of government speakers, this is the first tranche of reforms. There will be further reforms in the not too distant future, and I think the Hon. Frank Pangallo just alluded to that. There will be things that will be traversed, and particularly that the Hon. Robert Simms on behalf of the Greens will be moving, that we are not necessarily opposed to, but in the not too distant future we will be looking to address some of that. That having been said, I look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: There are five clauses and a schedule, with a number of amendments lodged. There is an amendment in the name of the Hon. Mr Simms at clause 1. I am wondering whether we can postpone clause 1 with agreement, because I think a number of your amendments actually reflect back. Are there are any contributions at clause 1 before we move on? The Hon. Mr Simms, you have a contribution at clause 1?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, thank you, Chair. I was going to propose the same course as the one you have outlined, so that is fine. I do have a few general questions about the bill. The minister and many other speakers have referenced a second tranche of reforms that will be coming to this place. I am wondering if the Attorney could give the committee an indication of the time frame that the government has in mind—when we will be seeing that draft bill and its scope.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am advised that the government has previously said by the end of this year, but of course if there are elements of that we can do sooner, that is something we are actively engaged in looking at.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Of the submissions that were received into the government's review, how many advocated for things like rent capping and other more meaningful action on the rental crisis?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am advised that there were quite a number of submissions, particularly from various groups, and there were a number that did advocate for rent capping.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Will the government make these submissions publicly available, along with the recommendations of Commissioner Soulio?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am happy to take that on notice and see what possibility there is to publish the ones that—I am advised that there will be some that requested confidentiality, which of course ought to be respected, but I am happy to take that on notice and see what can be published outside of those that are marked confidential.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In a similar vein, there are reports that would have been complied by the commissioner—or hearsay, whoever collates it—which would have given a breakdown of the issues raised and the number of submissions that each covered. Is the government able to provide some of that statistical data to advise this chamber what issues received a proportion or a particular number of submissions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. Again, I am happy to take that on notice. I do not have in front of me right now what the breakdown would be but, like the answer to the last question, I am happy to take it on notice and see what can be provided.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Many of the speakers on behalf of the government have talked about the bill banning rent bidding. Can the minister explain to me how precisely the bill bans rent bidding when landlords and real estate agents are still able to accept an offer that is made above the asking price?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. On my advice, what this bill proposes is that it will not allow landlords to solicit offers of higher rates than what is advertised. It will not stop acceptance of higher rates, but it will prohibit the soliciting of rates higher than what is advertised.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, I accept that, but how precisely does this ban rent bidding? Is rent bidding only the practice, in the government's mind, of advertising for rents higher than the asking price? Surely the bidding is when the individual is able to actually put in a bid that is higher than the asking price. Can I ask why that was not addressed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I do not have a lot more to add, but what this bill seeks to do is to prohibit the soliciting or asking for higher prices. It does not prohibit the acceptance of it, but it prohibits asking for that and therefore promoting people to do that.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In relation to rent bidding, if my hearing served me correctly, I think I heard some of the government contributions refer to rent bidding as an increasing practice. On what basis, what advice has the government received that that is actually the case, particularly given that REISA bans their members from engaging in it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. In relation to individual members' contributions, I am happy to go away and find out if there are statistics that may lay behind that. I do not have that information in front of me, but I am happy to go and have a look.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Clearly, we are going to be debating this this afternoon, so when is the Attorney committing to provide this information to the chamber?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to provide it as soon as possible. If I can get some information before other information, I am happy to provide that to honourable members as soon as I am able to.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Webster's Dictionary defines a bid as 'to offer a price for payment or acceptance' or as a verb 'to make a bid; to say what one will pay'. In light of that definition, how precisely does the government's bill ban rent bidding if actually all it is doing is banning the advertising of a rent price above the asking price?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am advised that in effect what the legislation does is ban the practice by agents; that is, it stops agents going out to solicit or attempt to have potential tenants offer higher amounts.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Webster's Dictionary definition of the word bid is 'to offer a price for payment'. Does the minister therefore concede that the bill does not actually ban the bid?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his question and his use of semantics and wording but, as I have said, the advice is that it stops landlords engaging in this sort of behaviour.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Who did the government consult with before developing the bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think it is on record that there were a large number of submissions put forward in relation to this bill. I am advised that in terms of higher rents being offered or solicited, under what we are proposing, we are now in line with the vast majority of other jurisdictions that have moved towards or are moving towards what we are proposing in this bill. I move:

That consideration of clause 1 be postponed and taken into consideration after all other clauses and proposed new clauses.

Motion carried; clause postponed.

Clause 2 passed.

New clause 2A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 2, after line 8—Insert:

2A—Insertion of section 47

Before section 47A insert:

47—Agent of landlord must disclose conflict of interest

(1) Before entering into a residential tenancy agreement, a prospective tenant must, if an agent is acting for the landlord in respect of the proposed agreement, be advised in writing by the agent of any direct or indirect interest that the agent has in the residential premises or in a party to the proposed agreement.

(2) If an agent of a landlord contravenes subsection (1), the agent is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

This is an amendment that relates to requiring agents to disclose conflicts of interest. It is an important transparency measure. This would ensure that all conflicts of interest are out in the open, especially those that relate to the relationship between the landlord and the agent or any potential developer.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise on behalf of SA-Best to say that we will actually support this measure, even though the government has tried to give me an argument saying that it was not necessary and doubling up. I do not think that is actually the case. There is nothing like having transparency. It is not just in what we would consider the normal real estate transaction between tenant and landlord, I understand that there are also issues when it comes to residential villages, where there could be potential conflicts of interest when prospective tenants are actually signing agreements there. SA-Best will be supporting this.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for bringing this amendment to us. I am advised it was not a measure that was raised in submissions to the review of the act, and I am advised that the proposal is not consistent with laws in other jurisdictions of Australia. The government appreciates the intent behind it, but we will not be supporting this amendment at this time.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal Party has not received any representation asking for this particular amendment; therefore, we will not be supporting it.

New clause negatived.

Clause 3 passed.

New clause 3A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, after line 14—Insert:

3A—Amendment of section 49—Residential tenancy agreements

Section 49—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) It will be taken to be a term of every residential tenancy agreement entered into after the commencement of this subsection that the landlord, any agent of the landlord and the tenant must comply with an order of the Tribunal under Division 6A relating to the residential tenancy agreement.

This amendment would allow the minister to apply rent controls. Members of this place will be familiar with the arguments the Greens have made in relation to rent controls before, so I will not repeat them, suffice to say, if ever there was a time for rent control, this is it. This would not force the government to control rents, it would give the minister the power to step in and control rents in circumstances if they saw fit.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal Party will not be supporting this amendment. I think it is worth making some remarks about how markets operate. There is nothing that scares investors away more from a particular investment class, if I can use that term, than something like this, which could potentially arbitrarily change the laws at a whim. We certainly appreciate the difficulty that a lot of people are finding themselves in. This is not the solution. What we need is greater supply in the market.

We have seen a tightening of the market. I think there is a whole range of factors that have led to that, including the banking royal commission nationally, which has driven a lot of investors out of the market. This will have unintended consequences. I am sure it is not the intent of the honourable member to have this effect, but I firmly believe it would firmly tighten the market as more mum-and-dad investors particularly would leave the market, which would actually increase the amount of homelessness in our state.

I think there is often a tendency to reach for solutions which might make sense in some circumstances, but there is a very broad set of factors at play which has led to the current housing crisis. This certainly will not assist.

The CHAIR: Just before anybody goes any further, the Hon. Mr Simms, we think you might be talking to your new clause 4A, and I think, the Hon. Ms Lensink, you responded to new clause 4A, and the Attorney was about to jump on new clause 4A. How about we go back to new clause 3A?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I have some inconsistent notes here. I apologise for that.

The CHAIR: Amendment No. 3 [Simms–1]:

Section 49—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) It will be taken to be a term of every residential tenancy agreement entered into after the commencement of this subsection that the landlord, any agent of the landlord and the tenant must comply with an order of the Tribunal under Division 6A relating—

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This is the pets element. I am sorry, Mr Chair; apologies for that. This amendment relates to a presumption in favour of renting with pets. Apologies for the confusion.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am happy to make some remarks while other members are considering their position. I am very sympathetic to pets. I have had pets my whole life. I have rented with pets and lived with pets and know how important they are to everybody, but this does reverse the onus so that landlords will not be able to refuse to have pets unless the tribunal ultimately agrees. Again, placing these restrictions on people, notwithstanding the situation people often find themselves in, will have the impact of forcing people out of the market if they were to come under this circumstance.

I note from a number of emails I have received—I think we have probably all received very similar emails about pets—that people are talking about litters and kittens. That is actually more to do with desexing issues, something our parliament has dealt with and something I am very strongly in favour of, both compulsory desexing and clamping down on puppy farms and also people who do not respect animals enough to ensure they have them desexed so that they do not breed and produce unnecessary litters.

I am certainly very sympathetic, and we have looked at the issue of pets in rentals before. I think at one stage I proposed that we could potentially have bonds to cover that issue, and I think a lot of landlords would feel much more comfortable if they were able to apply a bond. However, we do not believe this measure is in any way going to assist the situation, it will just further tighten the rental market.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that we will not be supporting this amendment, but it is certainly one of the issues that is being considered as we look at further reforms to the residential tenancy scheme. There were submissions from, in particular, the Law Society, the RSPCA and Shelter SA that advocated for some form of consideration in relation to pets as part of rental agreements, and it is something we will further consider.

In relation to the questions that were asked earlier, I have had further advice and can confirm that there is an intention to release those submissions in the coming weeks—of course, with the caveat of those who have asked to remain confidential.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I indicate that we will be opposing this amendment, and the consequential ones afterwards, about pets. As I outlined in my speech, it seems there is legislation that is intended to take control away from the actual property owner and their ability to make decisions on whether or not to rent to tenants who have pets, bearing in mind that they have to bear the enormous costs of any damage that might be incurred. You are really taking away protections from the landlords in relation to safeguarding their own properties.

The best way to approach this would be consensus between the landlord and the tenant, for them to be able to talk it through. I have done that previously. As a renter myself, I have discussed with my landlord the possibility of being able to have our pets with us, and we came to an amicable agreement when we were able to talk it through. To take away the right from the landlord and instead leave it up to a tribunal to decide I am afraid I cannot agree with, and we oppose it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Obviously, I rise to support this amendment by the Greens to make it easier for tenants to keep their pets, particularly if they change rental properties and already have those pets. What it does, by changing the onus, is change the balance of power just that little bit and gives a tenant some power in having that conversation before they move into a property, before they have proven themselves to be a good tenant. Having the default position that they should be allowed to have pets and that it does not require the landlord to let them have pets simply changes the premise on which the conversation starts in the first place.

Throughout all this, all I hear is that the market is the important thing in this equation, not the people actually looking for adequate housing and those people who do have pets. We have a crisis with animals in shelters at unprecedented levels at the moment, and we have a crisis with people seeking housing. To put yet another burden on people who often have pets they much love, to be faced with having to give up those pets simply because they need to find a house, is something we should be grappling with in this conversation.

We should not be talking about markets and not talking about how hard it would be for a landlord to let somebody have a pet, when they already take a bond should that pet create damage. The power imbalance is such that there are so many people applying for every single rental vacancy out there that people are too scared to ask whether they can also bring their pet.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 2

Noes 18

Majority 16

AYES

Franks, T.A. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J. Game, S.L.
Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E. Henderson, L.A.
Hood, B.R. Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F.
Pnevmatikos, I. Scriven, C.M. Wortley, R.P.

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 4.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, lines 28 to 30 [clause 4, inserted section 52A(3)]—Delete 'solicit or otherwise invite an offer of an amount of rent under a residential tenancy agreement that' and substitute' enter into a residential tenancy agreement if the amount of rent payable under the proposed agreement'

This amendment would in effect ban the practice of rent bidding by preventing the landlord or real estate agent from being able to accept an offer above the asking price. It was interesting during the clause 1 discussion that the minister did appear to concede that it does not in effect ban rent bidding. This Greens amendment would achieve that objective for the government, so I look forward to their support.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that the government will not be supporting this, and I thank the honourable member for verballing me. I do thank him for his lesson in semantics earlier in here, but the government has chosen to tackle the issue of rent bidding like most other jurisdictions and prohibit the soliciting of higher than the advertised rent by agents, rather than the method that the Hon. Robert Simms has gone down. Just for the record, I did not suggest that we were not tackling or banning rent bidding. What we are doing is how most other jurisdictions have done it and have it on the agent's side.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I know the Greens love to micromanage everything, but on our side we do not believe in telling people what they can do all the time, so—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Not really. I mean, we could debate these issues all day but it would be beyond the scope of these particular amendments. We will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: SA-Best will not be supporting the amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 2

Noes 18

Majority 16

AYES

Franks, T.A. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J. Game, S.L.
Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E. Henderson, L.A.
Hood, B.R. Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F.
Pnevmatikos, I. Scriven, C.M. Wortley, R.P.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Simms–1]—

Page 4, after line 21—Insert:

4A—Insertion of section 55A

After section 55 insert:

55A—Minister may impose rent control measures

(1) The Minister may, if satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, by notice in the Gazette, impose measures for the purposes of regulating or controlling rents, or variations to rents, payable under residential tenancy agreements (rent control measures).

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), rent control measures may—

(a) regulate, limit or prohibit variations to rent payable under residential tenancy agreements; and

(b) impose other measures relating to rent that the Minister considers appropriate.

(3) Rent control measures may apply to a specified class of residential tenancy agreements or to residential tenancy agreements generally.

(4) Despite any other provision of this Act—

(a) rent control measures imposed under this section apply according to their terms; and

(b) it will be taken to be a term of every residential tenancy agreement (whether entered into before or after the commencement of this subsection) that the landlord, any agent of the landlord and the tenant must comply with rent control measures under this section.

This is the amendment I foreshadowed earlier that would give the minister the power to impose rent control measures. I know some members are concerned about rent controls, but this amendment would actually allow the minister to impose rent controls if they are satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so and they would therefore be able to regulate or control rents for a set period of time.

I know some members have said that could have unforeseen consequences. It would be for the minister of the day to weigh those factors, and I have a lot of faith in the minister. I am sure she would make the right call, but why not give her the capacity to make that decision, particularly given some of the challenges that we face at the moment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I want to indicate that SA-Best will be opposing this amendment by the Hon. Robert Simms. While I again acknowledge the merit in some of the things that the Greens put up, sometimes they do not make sense to the free market economy that we enjoy in this country.

Also, as I pointed out when I was speaking, the last thing you want to do is to have a disincentive for investment in property. It is the mum-and-dad investors who are the ones who are putting their money into property and creating rental properties, but we have seen gradually, as a result of poor government policy over decades, that they have not supplemented additional social housing, low economic housing, and also the implementation of extraordinary planning measures have caused a logjam of applications for properties to be developed. Again, it is turning people off. Even now, I am getting complaints in my office in relation to the new planning code and just how difficult it has been for people to get a house built on time—the times have blown out.

I am surprised that the government, considering how it goes for all these populist measures, is not supporting this one. It seems to support anything else that would make it quite popular. Again, as I said, it would be a disincentive for investors. I am not going to let the Liberals off the hook here, because they introduced the land tax two or three years ago that also saw many investors move out of the market. In closing, I am opposing it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister clarify whether or not we already have rent control in this state?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that I am not aware of anything within the Residential Tenancies Act that would do that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister clarify that we already had rent control in this state under the Housing Improvement Act?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have advice in relation to that, but I am happy to go away and find out for the honourable member.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To save the minister time, is the Attorney aware that under the Housing Improvement Act this state already has rent control for substandard housing in this state and, indeed, there the minister takes responsibility for ensuring rent control? So this would simply be an expansion of that particular approach and is not something novel or new for this state.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member and, as I said, I am happy to take that on notice and go away, but I am not sure that I would characterise it as a mere minor expansion of something that already exists, allowing the possibility of rental control over any single property in the state.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I made that speech before I was following on the lead from the Hon. Mr Simms. I should know better than to follow his lead, but the speech I made on a previous clause related to rent control. This gives me another opportunity to speak about something which is in the city of New York, where rent control exists. There is a situation where for those properties that are under rent control, they do not get the sort of investment that they need so a lot of them are not in a great state of repair.

You have this huge disparity between those people who happen to be in a rent-controlled apartment where they might be paying reduced rent but the maintenance is not done properly and in huge contrast there is a huge gap between those properties and the other ones. As we know, they have very expensive real estate in New York. I think these things can seem to have the effect that people want. We need more supply in South Australia and we need more landlords as part of that. We do not need rent control.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 2

Noes 18

Majority 16

AYES

Franks, T.A. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J. Game, S.L.
Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E. Henderson, L.A.
Hood, B.R. Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F.
Pnevmatikos, I. Scriven, C.M. Wortley, R.P.

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 5 passed.

New clause 6.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Simms–1]—

Page 6, after line 12—Insert:

6—Repeal of section 83

Section 83—delete the section

I only need to move new clause 6, because the new insertion has been dealt with. This new clause is a repeal of section 83, which would involve a deletion of section 83, which in effect would allow for or end no-cause evictions in South Australia, which is an issue the Greens have been very concerned about over a long period of time. I have outlined the reasons for the amendment; I will not reventilate them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government thanks the Hon. Mr Simms for bringing this amendment to the chamber. This issue certainly was ventilated, I am informed, in submissions and one, as I said, that is being actively considered and how that might apply in the second tranche of reforms being looked at in relation to the residential tenancies scheme, and that work is ongoing. Although we are not standing here saying that we completely oppose the concept and the idea, it is something we are considering ourselves, so will not be supporting this amendment at this time.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My understanding of the way the current laws operate, and what the honourable member is seeking to delete in clause 83, is that a landlord can terminate a lease without specifying grounds. I think there are probably other ways to achieve what the honourable member is talking about, including things like providing longer terms for people to have tenancies and potentially providing clauses for tenants so that if they are notified that their lease is to be terminated, they can seek to end it early so that they themselves are not left in a position where they are paying two sets of rent. They are things that should be further explored.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I indicate that SA-Best will oppose this amendment, and we look forward to what the government may propose in the next tranche of reforms.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 2

Noes 18

Majority 16

AYES

Franks, T.A. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J. Game, S.L.
Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E. Henderson, L.A.
Hood, B.R. Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F.
Pnevmatikos, I. Scriven, C.M. Wortley, R.P.

New clause thus negatived.

New clause 7.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–2]—

Page 6, after line 12—Insert:

7—Amendment of section 101—Application of income

Section 101(1)—after paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) for the benefit of an industrial association or organisation registered under a law of the State or of the Commonwealth that the Commissioner is satisfied has a primary purpose of advocating for and representing the interests of tenants, rooming house residents and residents of residential parks; and

This is the final amendment, members will be relieved to know. This amendment relates to giving the commissioner the power to establish an independent advocate for renters and tenants. Certainly, feedback that I have had overwhelmingly in engaging with the sector is that this is something that is long overdue for South Australia. At the moment, the act gives the commissioner the power to allocate interest from bond money on a range of projects, but this would actually give the commissioner the power to establish an independent body to advocate for renters and I think would go a long way in terms of addressing some of the imbalances that can exist within our rental system.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to indicate that SA-Best will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I would like to make some remarks in relation to this amendment, which we also will be supporting. We believe there is a gap in the market that has been identified by both people who speak on behalf of tenants and also some of the people who speak on behalf of landlords, and if I could just elaborate on that little bit. There are a range of services that operate in this particular space. The Marshall Liberal government re-tendered for the advocacy services under the public Housing Authority, which went to a combination of Uniting Communities SA and Service to Youth Council who operate the RentRight service, which is largely a telephone advice service with information available on their website.

However, there are many people who advocated for an expanded tenant mediation service, which would assist both landlords and tenants to be clear about their respective rights and options and to thereby reach a resolution on issues before needing to resort to SACAT, which can be quite lengthy. In particular, mediation and dispute resolution would be quite a useful service before both parties get, for want of a better word, frazzled and angry at SACAT.

A lot of the issues that arise are with the private landlords who can self-manage issues, so to be able to provide more advice and education to them would be useful to make sure they understand their requirements in terms of things like that they should do things using licensed trades instead of trying to get someone who might not know what they are doing to do some repairs.

I have also had advice from some in the real estate sector that they see particular value in assisting people to prepare their tenant applications—something a little bit like a mortgage broker. The way it has been explained to me is that a prospective landlord wants to actually be able to see someone's income in terms of that the tenancy is financially sustainable. Sometimes people will provide one part of that, such as their part-time work, but they might omit that they also receive Centrelink income or child support for a landlord, for instance, or an agent that uses a rule of thumb, such as 33 per cent of gross income. They could also take into account if the prospective tenant has savings, which would assist them to make their tenancy viable.

This is quite similar to what SAHA do when they have people come in to talk to them about the private rental affordability program, where they will look at someone's income and then determine what their affordability range is. I think it probably does not take place enough and we certainly see that there is a gap in that range of services between the NGOs that run rental support, SAHA and SACAT. There is certainly space for something which will assist people to first of all know what their viability is and then for mediation and dispute resolution for people who get caught in difficult situations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to say that we are happy to look at this. We are not making a commitment that this will be necessarily supported or that we will not seek to change how it is worded when it gets to the lower house, but we are happy—not to oppose it in this chamber but with a view to having a look at it between the houses.

New clause inserted.

Clause 1 passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:52): 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