Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the Residential Tenancy Amendment Bill, otherwise known as the Pets in Rentals Bill, and very much welcome it being brought on. We were standing here ready to debate it some time ago when it was effectively pulled for additional consultations. We know there has been work done and it is very welcome to see it back here again. I will indicate at the outset that we will be supporting this bill. It is a significant improvement on the status quo and we do have some amendments that can improve it further. They have been distributed to all members some time ago and again recently.
To start with, we fully support increasing the rights of renters and regarding pets in rentals and minor modifications this bill goes some of the way, but I want to put on the record again that we believe we need to go further as a parliament and make sure that renters have more protections from exorbitant rent rises and from no-cause evictions. We need to ensure there are minimum standards in our rental properties so that they enjoy the benefits of a house that has standards, they enjoy the cost savings when it comes to heating their house and so forth. Of course, we need to take action on short-stay accommodation and the plethora of whole-home rentals that are being stripped out of the market and put into the short stay market. It is deeply concerning that this government and this parliament has consistently refused to try to take action to empower councils to actually deal with the loss of whole-home rentals in their areas to short stay accommodation.
Dr Broad raises a good point that is worth raising here. This kind of legislation may force landlords to pull their properties and shoot it into the short-stay market. That is one of the reasons why we absolutely need to do this kind of rental reform parallel with reigning-in short‑stay accommodation like Airbnb, otherwise you can end up with some perverse impact. We are already getting incredibly perverse impacts where houses, homes are being turned into pseudo-hotels and it is having a significant effect on supplies. I will put on the record here that we Greens will consistently stand up for renters, consistently raise issues of rent control, no‑cause evictions, minimum standards, and short stay.
I will also say that we did consider trying to bring in amendments that dealt with those issues as part of this bill but we looked at the scope and made a conscious decision not to do that. Instead, we will prosecute those in some other fashion. We will be bringing some amendments forward in the committee stage of this bill though. It is a real improvement on where things are at. We support increasing the rights of renters. There is ‘pets in rentals’ legislation in just about every other state: Queensland, Victoria, Australian Capital Territory, South Australia has got it. Northern Territory has got it. Western Australia and New South Wales have made commitments and are heading in that direction.
We have all had pets. We have heard Dr Broad’s experience with his pets. Similarly, I grew up on a farm and had pets. It is only, literally in the last year, that I have not had a pet in the house. We all know the benefits they bring to us. They bring joy, they bring responsibility if you have children they engender a sense of responsibility and caring in the children for another being and they are incredibly important for our health and wellbeing. I do not have the statistics or the reports in front of me at the moment, but we know that companion animals and pets massively increase the quality of life of humans. The presence of another being in our homes increases our health and wellbeing and our quality of life. There is strong logic for this legislation and we fully support reordering the responsibility and the onus of proof, effectively, so that the tenant has rights and, sure, the landlord has recourse, but it is up to the landlord to raise concerns and take forth the complaint to TASCAT for appeal.
We also know that rental laws have a significant impact on the number of dogs in particular that are being surrendered. I will read the submission from Dogs’ Homes of Tasmania into the Hansard, is quite shocking and interesting. It says:
In the last 12 months, 1018 dogs have been voluntarily relinquished to our shelters, 156 of which are now known to have been separated from their families because they are unable to secure rental accommodation that will allow them to keep a dog. Realistically, there are likely to be more as formal relinquishment with the council can attract a fee which can be avoided if the dog is allowed to roam and collected and taken by an animal control officer or a member of the public. For some, there is a stigma around no longer being able to support a pet, and as such we find that the reasons given for relinquishment may not always truly reflect the individual circumstances.
The Dogs’ Home is saying that 15 per cent of dogs relinquished to its homes are as a result of rentals and not being able to have a pet in rental. In fact, they are saying that there is a greater percentage again.
While I laid out earlier the benefits of having a pet, imagine the angst, the dismay, the despair in families, in children, if you actually have to relinquish a pet. A pet is a member of the family. If you cannot take your pet from one rental to another, you can imagine the impact that would have on the ambience and the harmony in the home and, as a result, the wellbeing of the family that is there.
I want to talk through some of the amendments while I am on this on my feet in this second reading point to flag them. They were distributed some time ago and redistributed recently.
I wanted to talk about assistance animals to start with. With regard to the provisions that allow for the keeping of pets in tenancies, we are broadly satisfied with the model proposed by the government with a couple of caveats. The omission of assistance animals as exempt animals is, in our view, a poor choice, as pointed out by various submissions to the consultation process, including the Anti‑Discrimination Commissioner. It is already illegal to discriminate by refusing to allow an assistance animal in a tenancy. However, a tenant would first have to be denied and then lodge a discrimination complaint. This is onerous and unnecessary, and this should be spelled out quite clearly in the act.
Our amendment includes assistance animals as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 of the Commonwealth in the definition of ‘exempt animal’. This is not without precedent in Tasmanian law. Clause 13 of the TasTAFE bylaws 2014 provide that assistance animals as well as guide dogs cannot be prohibited on campus. Those bylaws use the same definition that we propose.
The other one is the ineligible animals and unintended consequences. We have some concerns about the operation of the new provisions as they relate to ineligible animals. The proposed new 36R(4) sets out that:
For the avoidance of doubt, a tenant of residential premises may not keep an ineligible animal on those premises.
While this is framed as an avoidance of doubt provision, it actually seems to establish a substantive new law. Other than setting out that ineligible animals are not pets and affording the tribunal powers to determine that an animal is an ‘ineligible animal’ and to require the ineligible animal to be removed, there are no other provisions. On our read, this legislation prohibits any ineligible animal in rental properties and does not provide any ability for a landlord to consent.
In relation to unregistered dogs or cats without a microchip, this is less of an issue because both of those matters can be remedied. However, if a dog has been declared a dangerous dog, there is little that can be done by an owner. If the owner of a dangerous dog is to comply with the requirements under the Dog Control Act 2000, why should it be unlawful for them to keep a dog in a rental property regardless of the consent of an owner? We agree that the substantive provision should not apply to dangerous dogs. However, we also feel that a provision making it outright illegal in a tenancy is overreach. Presumably, on commencement, this would mean that every existing tenant who owns a dangerous dog with the landlord’s consent would now be in violation of the lease. One could argue that if a landlord consents then they will take no action and everything would be fine. However, given consent is a non‑issue in this bill, the landlord could change their mind at any point and presumably evict the tenant. This means the tenancy security of a person who owns a dangerous dog is inherently undermined.
Further to this, the issue does not appear to have formed part of the original CBOS consultation. We are not sure that the government has fully considered this provision. We are proposing an amendment to omit subsection 4 from section 36R. Subsection 1 only applies to pets and exempt animals, which ineligible animals are not, so an avoidance of doubt clause is unnecessary.
Safety modifications are really important. There is a whole range of reasons why modifications need to be done and made to a premises. The Greens welcome provisions for allowing modifications to affix furniture for safety purposes without approval if it will not cause permanent damage. We are, however, of the view that a lot more could be done.
Multiple submissions, including those from Homes Tasmania, Shelter Tasmania, the Tenants Union and Bolt it Back for Reef argued for broader provisions allowing for reasonable modifications. We have amendments that would broaden the scope of the bill to include proposals for minor modifications for safety purposes, assistance in relation to disability, energy efficiency, security and access to telecommunications. These are constructed in similar terms to the ACT legislation.
The approach used by the ACT for these modifications differs from the proposed approach in this bill in that in the ACT, all modifications can in effect be appealed by a landlord to the tribunal. However, in this bill, safety modifications for affixing furniture can only be appealed in effect if they would cause permanent damage.
To avoid weakening the safety provisions of this bill, we established two types of modifications. Permitted modifications retain the government process and include the definition of safety modification currently in the bill, as well as allowing for further permitted modifications to be prescribed by regulation. Permitted modifications retain the approach used by government where consent only needs to be obtained if it would be likely to cause permanent damage. Our amendments also introduce ‘specified modifications’ which, like the ACT legislation, includes modifications that are minor for safety purposes, assistance in relation to disability, energy efficiency, security and access to telecommunications. The definition of specified modifications also allows for further matters to be prescribed.
Unlike for permitted modifications, consent needs to be sought for specified modifications, regardless of whether or not they are likely to cause permanent damage. Consent can only be denied for a specified modification if an owner has a tribunal order. An owner can attach reasonable conditions to consent, including requiring a tradesperson to do the works, and requiring a tenant to restore the property to the condition it was in prior to works being undertaken. Conditions can be appealed by the tenant to the Tribunal.
Honourable Deputy Speaker, we certainly do support this bill. We would like to see it improved to make sure that opportunities to improve the situation for renters are not lost while this is before the Parliament. If members have not got the amendments in front of them, be in touch. I am very happy to discuss them and look forward to talking to them collectively in the committee stage.
