Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill: Second Reading

Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 22 November 2011]
p9408b-9417a
Hon Dr Sally Talbot; Hon Lynn MacLaren

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT BILL 2011

Second Reading

Resumed from 7 September.

HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [4.18 pm]: I rise on behalf of the Greens (WA) to speak on
the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2011. The Greens are broadly supportive of this long overdue
revision of our Residential Tenancies Act and state law that protects tenants.

Hon Simon O’Brien: And I am very broadly appreciative.

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: And I welcome Hon Simon O’Brien’s broad appreciation.

Hon Simon O’Brien: It’s a bit overdue; you should do it more often!

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: I have mentioned before that I have been appreciative of this government’s ability to
get to the house bills that we have been waiting a long time for, so I give credit where it is due. I have been
aware of this particular bill for a long time because I was an adviser to the Greens in the Parliament before I
became a member of Parliament. I recall making submissions to it way back in 2001, which was when this
review was being considered. Later on I became a housing policy officer for the Western Australian Council of
Social Service and participated in some of the lobbying efforts on that organisation’s behalf. I talked to the then
Minister for Housing in the days of the “No Room in the Boom” campaign and called for more affordable rental
options, better consumer protection and a redirection of revenue created by the economic boom towards
increasing public and social housing stock. However, one of the things that we lobbied for way back then was
abolishing letting and option fees and linking rent increases to the consumer price index. Many people have
worked on these reforms for many years. If members look on the internet they will see that the officers who are
now engaged in this issue also have a long history and much experience in the non-government sector working
as housing advocates. I think that is part of the reason that the amendments to the legislation are really important,
sensible, tested amendments and that we should pass them as soon as possible and get the act underway so that
tenants can have many of the protections that are being offered.

In looking at the protections this bill offered, we of course consulted with a wide range of stakeholders. I want to
mention some of the stakeholders that we met with, including the current policy team at WACOSS; the Tenants
Advice Service; Shelter WA; the Community Housing Coalition of WA and other tenant advocacy
organisations; several community housing providers, including Access Housing Australia located in Fremantle
near me; and the student guilds at Murdoch and Curtin Universities. All the people in these organisations, of
course, have a strong interest in tenants’ rights, but we also talked to some landlords. We were not able to talk to
the Property Owners’ Association of WA, but we did get a copy of the submission it made and we gave it some
consideration. The review of the legislation has come up with some very important reforms, and we are looking
forward to them being implemented, but it is also important to note that the scope of tenants’ rights reform is a
little bigger than this bill currently gives. I will quote from the National Shelter policy platform called “Housing
Australia Affordably”. It refers to improvements in the private rental sector and states —

The Australian Government should work with State and Territory Governments to develop national
standards for tenants’ rights that adopt current best practice, including:

• limiting evictions to cases where there is a “just cause” such as a serious breach of tenancy conditions, a need for the owner or their immediate family to use the dwelling as their principal place of residence, or the need for major repairs or renovations that require vacant possession;
• limits to the frequency and level of rent increases; — We have not quite managed to include that at this stage of tenancy reform, but I am hoping to do that at some stage, perhaps in the term of this Parliament —
• regulation of residential tenancy databases; — We have achieved that, and I think that is something to note —
• the introduction of tenancy rights for boarders and lodgers and for caravan park tenants; — That is on the “to do” list — and
• mechanisms to prevent or minimise discrimination.

How this amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act will impact on groups that are particularly vulnerable is a
particularly powerful point that I think deserves more careful examination. This document states that the
National Shelter policy platform called for state and territory governments to work together with the Australian
government to investigate the current state of the boarding house industry, and recommend measures for
transforming this sector into a viable alternative to low-income tenants. That is worthy of note because, although
it is important to acknowledge the work that is being achieved here, it is also important to acknowledge what is
yet to be done.

The bill before us amends the act in a number of ways that will improve the rights of tenants, and the Greens
(WA) support these amendments. These include the requirement for all residential tenancy agreements to be in a
prescribed form; the requirement that a property condition report be completed at the beginning and the
conclusion of a tenancy agreement; the establishment of a centralised bond administrator at the Department of
Commerce to manage the lodgement and disposal of all residential tenancy bonds; and the regulation of tenancy
databases.

I have just entered a new lease agreement myself. In doing that, even though it is in the private rental market, I
was most pleased that my landlord went through this process. I think it is becoming a culture in our rental market
to use those standardised tenancy agreements and to do a property condition report when a new tenant comes in.

I do not think she was aware that I was about to debate the bill before us, but I think that it is common practice
and it gives one great peace of mind to know that the Department of Commerce will manage the lodgement of
bonds. We have, I think it is fair to note, a stable rental market here in Western Australia. But it is also really
important to note that it is a particularly tight rental market at the moment. That is why these amendments are
particularly important to a growing number of Western Australians. The stakeholders that we consulted with had
a number of concerns about the bill as it currently stands. Members will note that 10 amendments stand in my
name on the supplementary notice paper, which we propose will improve the legislation. These 10 amendments
are not just out of the blue sky; they are reforms that have been tested and tried and that we expected to be in the
bill. I therefore hope that the government will give due consideration to whether it will support them.

The bill, as I said, affects a large proportion of Western Australians who are tenants or lessors. According to the
2006 Australian Census, the rental property market makes up about 26 per cent of the housing market in Western
Australia. At that time 200 000 dwellings in Western Australia were being used as rental properties. I know that
that number is much greater now that prices of real estate have skyrocketed to the point where key workers can
no longer afford to buy, and so are competing in that rental market. We know, therefore, that many more than
200 000 dwellings are rental properties. I think that the changes before us for the tenants and lessors of those
properties deserve careful consideration. It is important that we get this bill right. That is the spirit of the
amendments that the Greens have put forward, and I know that that is reflected also in the amendments that I see
on the supplementary notice paper from Hon Sally Talbot.

I want to particularly note that there was significant concern amongst our stakeholders regarding the addition of
provisions related to social housing and the effective transfer of the government’s disruptive behaviour
management policy into the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. That was done, as far as we know, without
much consultation with the sector. Every member of this place would have received a letter from a coalition of
groups, which outlines their concerns with this bill and calls upon us to oppose proposed section 75A. One of the
amendments standing in my name on the supplementary notice paper is an amendment to do just that. I will
quote from the letter that members received from this coalition of groups. The second page begins —

We acknowledge that a clear, consistent and effective policy response is needed to tackle the issue of
disruptive and ‘anti-social’ behaviour by tenants in public and social housing, and the sector is keen to
work with the Government to develop a consistent and equitable response. We do not believe that the
policy approach contained in these sections of the RTA Bill will achieve these objectives, and we
remain concerned that they will produce unintended consequences that will create more problems for
government and increase the demand on already overloaded community services.

The letter is signed by Lyn Levy, the acting chief executive officer of WACOSS; John Perrett, the executive
officer from the Tenants Advice Service WA; Colin McClughan, the executive officer of the Community
Housing Coalition of WA; Bronwyn Kitching, the executive officer of Shelter WA; Stephen Hall, the executive
director of the Western Australian Association for Mental Health; Myles Kunzli, the executive officer of the
Community Legal Centres Association (WA); and Ann-Margaret Walsh, the principal solicitor of the Street Law
Centre WA. That letter outlines my reasons for putting an amendment on the supplementary notice paper in
opposition to those clauses. I hope that the Parliament will consider that carefully over the coming days and
when we are in the Committee of the Whole, because this part of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill
2011 was added at the very last minute, and somebody needs to look at it very carefully. We have the
opportunity in this place to remove it from the legislation and deal with the very serious issue of antisocial
behaviour in a more comprehensive and what I would hope to be more effective way than proposed by this
legislation.

Debate interrupted, pursuant to temporary orders.
[Continued on page 9427.]

Read the rest of the day's debate