Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie Fields) (17:10): I make a contribution to the debate on the Fair Trading Amendment (Short-term Rental Accommodation) Bill 2018, which is in response to the New South Wales Parliament's planning and environment committee's public inquiry into short-term letting. I am a member of that committee, as are two of my colleagues. Short-term accommodation is not a new industry. I am sure that many members, if not all, have used short-term accommodation in one form or another for personal or professional reasons. What is new is that the market for short-term accommodation has substantially changed through the emergence and participation of technology. It has allowed more micro short-term accommodation suppliers to the market, created a global demand base, widened the geographical spread of supply, broadened the level of economic activity away from the central business district or clustered areas, and diversified the travel experience of short-term accommodation users.
These changes happened very quickly, yet our regulatory framework has not changed. Whilst this proposed bill does signal Parliament's intention to better manage the changing market structures of the industry, it falls well short of clarity and certainty for all industry participants. The use of technology in short-term accommodation is here to stay and it is better to regulate the market than to totally ban it. We all know how banning an industry works out—just ask our friends in the greyhound racing industry. New section 54B (1) outlines that through regulation rather than in the legislation a code of conduct for industry participants may be developed. New section 54B (2) (a) to (h) states that it may make provisions about rights, obligations, processes and required actions from industry participants, but does not define which one of the defined industry participants, as detailed in new section 54A (a) to (e), has carriage of that responsibility.
New section 54 (3) goes further and indicates that it may include punitive measures in the event of the contravention of the code of conduct. The operative word "may" in section 54B does little to clarify or provide certainty for industry participants—for example, new section 54B (2) (e), "may require the provision of information or reports to the Secretary". My question is: Which one of the industry participants has carriage of this responsibility? Is it the agent, the host, the platform provider, two of the three, or all three of them? This scenario of who carries the responsibility for the required functions and how it works remains unanswered in the legislation.
Let us go to another example: new section 54B (3) (b) and (c), which covers the compliance framework. How does enforcement work, who has responsibility and how will the rules be enforced? Dr Crommelin from the City Futures Research Centre at the University of New South Wales raised the point about ambiguity. It is all well and good to have a regulatory framework, but if it is not enforced or unable to be enforced effectively with clear lines of responsibility and ownership, then all we are creating is increased uncertainty. I also note in new section 54B (3) (b) where it refers to a cost recovery mechanism for the enforcement and administration of the code of conduct. Once again, which one of the industry participants is paying for this? How much is to be collected? Where is this revenue going to be spent? What happens if the revenue collected is inadequate? Is this a sneaky little bedroom tax in the making? These are just some of the questions that industry participants, amongst many others, will be asking.
The uncertainty is a problem of the Government's own making because it could not sort out its internal ideological differences. There has been a great deal of commentary on but not a lot of certainty in the proposed bill. I note that in schedule 2, which amends the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, new section 137A (2) provides for the primacy of a person's principal place of residence and prevents any by-law being enforceable to prohibit a person from using their residence for short-term accommodation. This is the same recommendation that was outlined in the committee's recommendations. A well-functioning short-term rental accommodation market is in everyone's interests. It adds value to our economy, allows regional areas to share in the tourist dollar, meets a temporary demand surge, provides visitors with a diverse experience of the special characteristics of the different towns and suburbs and grows the industry as a whole without necessarily taking anything away from existing short-term accommodation suppliers.
The planning and environment committee conducted a detailed inquiry and received evidence and submissions from a range of stakeholders. It is important to note these findings and evidence when developing the code of conduct. The code should not seek to regulate or over‑regulate the industry, especially where the focus is on an issue or issues which are more specific to a particular section of the industry or to a particular participant and are not widespread. There has been a lot of public commentary about the code and what it may contain regarding night limits, geographical exemptions, administration, compliance and enforcement. I reserve my further judgment until the code has been finalised, but I hope it can provide greater clarity and certainty that which is contained in schedule 1 to the bill. Then again, it may not.
