Mr BAYLEY – Minister, data from the Real Estate Institute of Australia’s Housing Affordability Report is in the Budget and if you extract that, it shows that Tasmania’s median rent is rising and it’s higher than the rest of the nation. In a cost-of-living crisis, this is adding significant pressure to renters. It is adding to their levels of stress and it is contributing to the risk of homelessness and/or homelessness itself. We acknowledge there is rental assistance in the Budget, of course, but as has been required for so long, we need some structural reform in this space so as rents are controlled to make sure that the rights of tenants are protected and rents are not excessive. Why are you so resistant to introducing this kind of reform to assist some Tasmanians who are so deeply in need?
Mr FERGUSON – I may have missed something in your question, so thank you for asking. I’ve heard everything you’ve said except was there a part in there of what specific reform you were proposing?
Mr BAYLEY – Rent controls and the ability to control rents and put some of the balance back in the favour of tenants. Rent rises, of course, are never prohibited. There are proposals out there that rents can certainly increase. But if there’s a problem with it, the onus of responsibility is shifted to the party with the most resources, which is the landlord, as opposed to the one undergoing the stress, which is the tenant.
Mr FERGUSON – Okay, Mr Wheeler, who is at the table to support the hearing, may add to my answer in a moment. From the outset, I don’t think any mainstream political party in this country supports rent capping, but I don’t disagree with you that you need controls and the RTA does contain some control mechanism so that unreasonable rents can be managed. That’s an important point and shouldn’t be lost in the public debate.
Mr BAYLEY – But it shouldn’t be lost that it’s the tenant who has to take a case to challenge that. Is that correct?
Mr FERGUSON – I hear what you’re saying. You have presented the question as a question with an inherent conflict between a tenant and a landlord and we would not want to promote that notion of conflict but agreeable relations between the parties to a rental agreement. Even the federal Labor government, which is a different flavour of politics to our Tasmanian Liberal government, acknowledges that rent caps, while politically popular or seductive for a party like your own, could actually lead to less rentals being available in the pool for renters. That could be a perverse bad outcome for renters who rely on a stock of rental properties to be in the rental pool.
I don’t disagree with your premise that you need to have some sensible controls. I’ll ask Mr Wheeler, if it’s okay with the committee, to speak to that on how that process works in practice. Our government would continue to be resistant to that proposal because it wouldn’t actually represent a reform. It might represent a very backward step for renters in Australia if landlords decide that it’s too hard to be in this sector and they sell their properties to get out of it and invest their funds elsewhere; we all know who will buy that property. It’ll be people who aren’t renters and that could be a very perverse bad outcome for renters.
Mr BAYLEY – It has to be part of a suite of reforms, but I take your point.
Mr WHEELER – I can give you some figures for unreasonable rent. During the 2023‑24 financial year, the commission received 53 unreasonable rent increase applications. One was assessed as unreasonable, four were assessed as reasonable, 36 were determined to be partially unreasonable with a reduced amount ordered, three were withdrawn, four were lodged outside the statutory time limit, two did not really relate to an increase in rent, and three remain under assessment. We get that sort of traffic. I can also talk you through the process if you like.
Mr BAYLEY – No, that’s not necessary, I’d be really interested in, and I appreciate there are probably not the data for this, but how many tenants would perhaps have liked to have challenged their rent increase but find it too intimidating and they don’t have the resources or they don’t have the digital or other literacy to be able to do it. There are a whole lot of factors involved, but I appreciate the data. It’s really helpful.
The second question should be easier and it’s about minimum standards for energy efficiency and other standards, electrical products in tenancies and so forth in rental properties, in a cost-of-living crisis to ensure that houses are well insulated and have energy‑efficient appliances in them. It seems like a no-brainer where everybody wins. I’m also interested in why you are so resistant to introducing measures that enforce and ensure that these kinds of reforms and these really positive initiatives aren’t mandated and tenants don’t therefore get to enjoy the benefits of an efficient house and lower bills.
Mr FERGUSON – If it’s okay with the committee, I’ll ask Mr Wheeler, who leads this area, to respond to you more fully. I just make the broader point that there is a real place for making sure that standards are fit for purpose and are appropriate and fair to all concerned. I wouldn’t want a divide across or between the table that we don’t agree at least on that. How best to express that is perhaps the question, and how far you go. The more that you push one side of the partnership between the landlord and the tenant, the more you push the pendulum against one side, it’ll actually potentially cause a distortion to the rental pool itself. I think we should be conscious of that. The more cost that you put on the owner of a property, you are going to lead to higher rents as well. If a landlord can argue that ‘The government made me make these improvements to the house’, good as they are, it’s going to lead to a higher rent. I think we should have that as part of the discussion wherever that proposal is being put forward. Mr Wheeler, as to those minimum standards, could you speak to that for Mr Bayley?
Mr WHEELER – The minimum standards are set out in the act. That’s what we work to. The most recent change was Mr O’Byrne’s change for public houses.
Mr BAYLEY – Window dressings.
Mr WHEELER – Which I understand they have to comply with by 6 November around window furnishings. Those minimum standards do change from time to time.
