Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2024 - Consideration In Detail

23 October 2024

Debate resumed from 22 October 2024.

The bill represents another significant step forward in our commitment to make renting fairer in New South Wales. The debate on the bill has underscored the importance of rebalancing our rental market, given the significant challenges facing the people of New South Wales, from rising living costs to low rental vacancy rates. I take this opportunity to address some points made by members. I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and the Opposition for its support for the bill.

Once again, I am slightly by perplexed that the shadow Minister and the member for Vaucluse criticised the Government for taking too long to introduce these reforms. They need a gentle reminder that the former Liberal-Nationals Government had 12 long years to deliver for renters in New South Wales but failed to act. The Minns Labor Government will not be lectured about timing by those opposite. They turned their backs on renters. This Government has acted to deliver the most significant reforms to the rental market in a decade. The shadow Minister also claimed that ending no-grounds evictions for both fixed-term and periodic leases will disincentivise investment. Make no mistake, other jurisdictions have already acted, some of them decades ago. Despite the shadow Minister's doom and gloom predictions, investment has remained strong.

We have learned a lot from other jurisdictions' experiences. Across all jurisdictions, investor lending as a proportion of total lending has increased. Down south in Victoria, it is up 24 per cent. In South Australia, it is up 12 per cent. In Queensland, it is up 18 per cent. In fact, leading market analyser CoreLogic says these changes are not likely to have any impact on investment. The bill proposes changes that will deliver certainty and security to both renters and owners in this State. The shadow Minister has foreshadowed that the Opposition will move an amendment to the bill in the Legislative Council for the reforms to apply to only periodic leases. That amendment would have distorting effects on the rental market. The reality is that most leases in New South Wales are fixed term.

Limiting the reforms to periodic leases would leave a significant number of renters without the protections they need. Most landlords do the right thing, but renters often feel like they are playing a game of chance. They live in fear of asking for basic repairs or making reasonable requests, unsure what kind of landlord they might face. The inclusion of fixed-term leases is an important part of these reforms and will give renters more confidence to feel secure in their homes without fear of eviction. Some Opposition members also criticised the bill for not addressing the supply of rental properties. Let me clear: The Government cannot address supply through the Residential Tenancies Act. This bill focuses on modernising our rental market.

I remind the Opposition that the Government already has significant work underway to improve both the quality and availability of housing supply, including a new planning assessment pathway for residential developments; a multibillion-dollar housing infrastructure plan; transport oriented development planning reforms; a record $6.6 billion investment to deliver 8,400 new social rental homes and a maintenance program; and the establishment of the Building Commission NSW to ensure we do not compromise quality for quantity. The member for Willoughby mentioned concerns about purpose-built student accommodation. The member said that providers will experience challenges with fixed-term leases not aligning with university semesters. Renters need certainty about where they will live and why their leases may end.

That reality does not change because the renter is a student. Allowing a student accommodation provider to end an agreement when the tenant is not at fault and still eligible for the accommodation would not provide certainty to renters about when or why their leases could end. We will monitor these reforms to ensure they are effective. The Rental Commissioner is working with industry stakeholders, including in the student accommodation sector. To clarify for the member for Willoughby, this bill does not introduce or alter the provisions for a portable rental bond scheme; it merely ensures that the Rental Commissioner is a member of the Rental Bond Board. Work on the portable bond scheme is progressing well.

I thank the member for Sydney for his contribution and his support of the bill. He foreshadowed that he will move amendments, which the Government will support. The member for Sydney also asked me to flag the Government's commitment to reform the rental application process, particularly to keep pets in rentals. The Government knows that more work is needed to ensure renters are not discriminated against during the application process, including for simply having pets. Next year, the Government intends to introduce reforms that focus specifically on the application stage, and to address what information is collected through applications to ensure a fair approach for all pet owners. Those reforms will be part of a larger initiative to improve privacy protections in tenancies to protect renters and industry.

I acknowledge the comments made by the member for Sydney about the provisions in the bill that require a renter to challenge a landlord's refusal at the tribunal. Similar sentiments were shared by the member for Newtown, the member for Balmain and the member for Ballina. The Government's model strikes the right balance by setting out all the reasons a landlord can refuse a pet. It gives a landlord appropriate discretion to consider not only the renter's request but also the risks for the property or animal, and their own situation if they reside at the premises. Importantly, the New South Wales model avoids every landlord refusal going to the tribunal, including reasonable refusals, which could impose an unnecessary onus on landlords and the tribunal. However, the tenant will still be able to dispute a refusal at the tribunal if they believe the grounds specified for the refusal are not applicable, or where consent has been given subject to a condition that they believe is unreasonable.

I note the comments of the member for Sydney about the need to also protect tenants in boarding houses. I appreciate the member's advocacy on this issue, particularly for the residents of Selwyn Street in Paddington. I thank him for inviting me to meet with those residents last week. The Government is committed to improving fairness and access to housing for all, including members of our community who currently live in boarding houses, which play an important role not only in the supply of affordable housing in New South Wales but also in the diversity of our neighbourhoods. People such as Steve, Barry, Ray, Rod, Brian, Richard, Manny, Alfie and the rest of the residents of the boarding house on Selwyn Street are great examples of the value affordable housing brings to the community.

Stable and low-cost boarding houses are essential for individuals who, under previous governments, often fall through the cracks because they do not meet the requirements to access social housing programs but cannot afford access to the private rental market. The Government is also exploring sensible recommendations to reform the Boarding Houses Act 2012 to provide more protections and clarity for residents. I have instructed the Department of Customer Service and the Department of Communities and Justice to continue work on how we can implement the 21 recommendations of the statutory review conducted back in 2020.

I acknowledge the support of The Greens and the contributions of the member for Newtown, the member for Balmain and the member for Ballina. The member for Newtown flagged that she will move amendments to the bill, including amendments relating to the reasons for eviction and the provisions for applying for a pet. I will respond to those amendments once moved. The member for Newtown raised concerns about tenants at risk of homelessness when they become ineligible for affordable or transitional housing. The Government has a commitment to make homelessness rare, brief and non-recurring. Every effort is made to support people to retain safe, supported housing. This work will continue and is further strengthened by the Government's record investment of $6.6 billion in social housing, including $100 million for a homelessness innovation fund.

I acknowledge the concern of the member for Newtown that the term "significant repairs and renovations" may need to be further clarified. Repairs and renovations can vary greatly, and the issue of whether a repair is significant will depend on the circumstances. However, they will need to have a major impact on the property. The Government will develop further guidance on this matter. The termination ground not only requires repairs or renovations to be "significant" but also stipulates that the property needs to be vacant for the works to be properly carried out. This approach will ensure that renters do not have their tenancies terminated when they do not actually need to leave the property.

The member for Newtown raised her concerns about the frequency of rent increases. I make clear that the bill prevents rent from being increased more than once in any 12-month period for all renters. That provision addresses a gap in the current Act, where renters who are under a fixed-term agreement of less than two years do not have that protection. Additionally, to prevent landlords entering into a new lease with the tenant in order to increase the rent, the changes will apply to subsequent leases, for example, when a lease is renewed. In response to the concern raised by the member for Newtown about how this protection will operate for group households, I confirm that the term "subsequent leases" includes situations where the landlord and at least one tenant remain the same in the subsequent lease.

The member for Ryde asked a question about what kind of landlord could use the provision for key worker housing. I can confirm that this ground is specifically intended for key worker housing managed and leased by the New South Wales Government. The portfolio of properties is identified for use by key workers to ensure that those workers are able to be housed close to their workplace.

I also note the concern raised by the member for Ryde about the keeping of pets in strata schemes. An owners' corporation can only prohibit the keeping of a pet if it unreasonably interferes with another occupant's use or enjoyment of their home. However, we are aware that some landlords, agents and owners' corporations are not sufficiently aware of these changes to strata laws. NSW Fair Trading will promote those protections as part of the Government's campaign to raise community awareness of these landmark rental reforms. I respond to the concerns raised by the member for Tweed about the enforcement process for renters whose landlord resides outside our State. Firstly, there are provisions in the bill such as fines that can be enforced by the regulator directly, regardless of where the landlord resides. Secondly, a renter whose landlord lives outside the State can also apply to settle disputes and enforce their rights through the Local Court of NSW. The fees to lodge an application with the Local Court are the same as what the tenant would pay to exercise their rights through the tribunal.

This bill represents a significant leap forward in creating a fairer and more stable rental market in New South Wales. For far too long our renters have lived under the shadow of uncertainty, fearing that at any moment they could lose their homes without reason or recourse. We recognise that landlords have legitimate needs to terminate leases to regain possession of their properties. It goes without saying that landlords will still be able to end a tenancy if a renter does not pay their rent, seriously damages the property, uses the premises for an illegal activity, or seriously or persistently threatens or abuses the landlord, their agent or contractors. However, by establishing specific grounds for termination, we ensure landlords can manage their properties without undermining the stability and security that renters so dearly need.

The reforms to make it easier for renters to keep pets recognise that, for many of us, pets are not just animals but beloved family members. The Government's approach to making it easier for renters to keep pets strikes the right balance between allowing renters to keep a pet and the reasonable needs and concerns of landlords. The bill provides a simple process for renters to request consent via a standard form, a limited set of reasons for the landlord to refuse permission, and an appeal process for the tenant.

The bill's other reforms aimed at making renting fairer include broadening the protection against rent increasing more than once in a 12‑month period for all types of leases, including fixed‑term leases of less than two years and successive leases between the same parties; requiring landlords to offer renters the choice of using electronic bank transfer and Centrepay to pay their rent; and ensuring renters cannot be asked to pay for background checks. The bill will also appoint the NSW Rental Commissioner as a permanent member of the Rental Bond Board to ensure she is able to fulfil her role.

These changes are not just about policies or about politics. They are about people: families, individuals, and the vibrant communities we are building. I thank all those who contributed to shaping these critical reforms, and the tenants, landlords, agents, and industry and advocacy leaders who have collaborated with the Government and provided insight and advice on the drafting of this important bill. Particularly, I thank the NSW Tenants' Union, Better Renting, UNSW Sydney City Futures Research Centre, the RSPCA, Domestic Violence NSW, Lucy's Project, Shelter NSW, Community Housing Industry Association, the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales, Ray White, Harcourts, Laing and Simmons, LJ Hooker, Committee for Sydney, the Aboriginal Legal Service and Legal Aid. Together we are delivering a rental system that is modern and fair for the people of New South Wales.

I thank those in NSW Fair Trading who have worked so hard to support the development of this bill: NSW Rental Commissioner Trina Jones, Diana Holy, Katerina Pavlidis, Anna Wade, Cassie Jacobs, Corena Sloper, Ragini Sood, Shivani Roy, Nancy Kha, Elizabeth Weisske, Joshua Greenwood, Teri Mrena, Prue Phillips, and Deb Fernon. I also thank hardworking department liaison officers Laura Gregory and Khamena Zaya, who provide great support to my office. I acknowledge the work of Katelyn Meredith from the Premier's office on these reforms. Lastly, I thank my staff members Alicia Sylvester and Brooke O'Rourke for their dedication to this important work and their commitment to this reform, which the rental market and the people of New South Wales greatly need. I commend the bill to the House.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Clayton Barr): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Consideration in detail requested by Mr Alex Greenwich and Ms Jenny Leong.

Consideration in Detail

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Clayton Barr): By leave: I will deal with the bill in groups of clauses and schedules. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 and schedule 1 be agreed to.

Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (16:15): By leave: I move my amendments Nos 1 to 3 on sheet c2024‑204H in globo:

No. 1Data collection

Page 2, clause 2. Insert after line 6—

(a1)Schedule 1[21A]—on 1 July 2025 or an earlier day to be appointed by proclamation,

No. 2Advertising about pets

Page 8, Schedule 1[9], proposed Part 3, Division 8. Insert after line 13—

73HAdvertising

A landlord, landlord's agent or other person must not advertise, in relation to residential premises for lease, that a tenant's animal will not be permitted to be kept at the residential premises.

Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

No. 3Data collection

Page 17, Schedule 1. Insert after line 39—

[21A]Section 222A

Insert after section 222—

222ACollection of data of evictions

(1)The Secretary must collect data on the grounds used by landlords to give termination notices, including the evidence given by landlords.

(2)The regulations may impose requirements on landlords and landlords' agents to give to the Secretary the information required to exercise the Secretary's functions under this section.

(3)The Secretary must, each year, publish on the Department's website a summary of the data collected.

More people are renting for longer and they need security of tenure. Owning an investment residential property comes with responsibilities that must align with the need to protect housing security in the community. Having an option to evict a tenant for no reason has provided a loophole for landlords to evict tenants in retaliation for exercising their rights. No‑grounds evictions have kept tenants vulnerable to unfair evictions. They have made it a risk to dispute rent rises or request maintenance, repairs or anything else. I welcome the bill replacing this option with a comprehensive list of lawful reasons for evictions. However, there are concerns that landlords could try to game some of those reasons to evict tenants they want to get rid of, and we need to monitor how these new laws operate.

My amendments will require data collection by the secretary on all evictions, including the reasons for each eviction, with the data published on the NSW Fair Trading website annually. The data will enable the Government and tenant advocates to assess any alarming trends, which the Parliament can address in the future if needed. The data can be used for the statutory review proposed in the amendment foreshadowed by the member for Newtown. My amendments will also place a ban on advertising a property for rental that prohibits keeping companion animals. If blanket companion animal bans are no longer permitted then landlords, agents and classified platforms should not be advertising properties where animals are refused. The housing affordability crisis has left renters vulnerable. I hope these amendments will strengthen the relief provided in this bill. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Innovation, Science and Technology, Minister for Building, and Minister for Corrections) (16:17): I thank the member for Sydney and indicate that the Government will be supporting his amendments. The Government recognises the need for good data to effectively monitor the reforms to no‑grounds evictions. Collecting data on the reasons a tenancy has ended, including data on the evidence provided, will enable NSW Fair Trading to monitor compliance with the new termination provisions and understand how the reforms are working in practice. The most practical way to report on termination of grounds would be during the administration of a bond claim. This will be outlined in the regulations, which will require the landlord, agent and tenant to provide information, including the date of termination, prior to the processing of a claim. Setting a date of 1 July 2025 to commence data collection requirements is practical for landlords and agents, who will need to familiarise themselves with new requirements, and gives enough time for the department to develop the capacity to collect and report on this data.

The amendment banning advertising that effectively says "no pets" in a rental property is complementary to the Government's work to make it easier to have pets in rentals. Prohibiting landlords and agents from continuing to advertise their property as "no pets" despite these reforms will prevent landlords from undermining their intent. Such advertising would also mislead renters about their rights and inhibit efforts to educate all parties about the change in the laws. A decision on a pet should be made on the actual pet and should not be made in advance by landlords acting in bad faith. Banning "no pets" advertising will encourage renters to be up‑front about the pets they keep, knowing that the landlord's decision must be actually applicable to them and to their animal.

Mr TIM JAMES (Willoughby) (16:19): I will be very brief. The Opposition will be supporting the amendments.

Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (16:19): The Greens also wish to express our support for the data‑related amendments. We also circulated a similar amendment. It is absolutely critical in the context of undertaking these significant reforms that we know whether or not the information is there. As Mr Temporary Speaker and the member for Willoughby will recall, there was a lot of debate in the committee inquiry about the lack of available data and how much of an impact that has. I do not want us to be having future discussions and debate on the legislation weighing up the merits as to whether or not people gamed the system, whether or not they used the right reason or the wrong reason, and how those reasons were used or not used. The amendment is valuable, and I thank the member for Sydney for the amendment.

The Greens do not oppose the pets amendment, but we have some concerns that putting a ban on putting "no pets" on an advertisement has the potential for someone with a pet to apply thinking that it is okay to have a pet but the landlord being ready to go with a whole lot of reasons as to why they cannot have that pet. Our concern is that the legislation is pushing further into the very murky area of an application process, and the arbitrary nature of a landlord or a real estate agent then being able to make a determination based on which applicants have a pet and which do not, which we do not have any line of sight to. The Rental Commissioner does not have a line of sight to that.

We know from previous inquiries that serious discrimination occurs unseen within the application process. While we appreciate the good intentions of the member for Sydney in saying that there should not be a no pets provision on the advertising, the concern The Greens hold is that landlords will know full well they are not intending to allow a pet in that premises, they are banned from putting "no pets" on the advertisement but when an applicant with a pet puts in an application, they are immediately disqualified from being considered for that property.

I note that the Rental Commissioner is in the Chamber listening to the debate and I understand that a lot of work has gone into the application process. I thought it was important in that context to put The Greens' concerns on the record. The amendment may be well meaning. We absolutely think that all properties should allow pets; if the owner can have a pet then the renter should be able have a pet. Having said that, solving it at the advertising point and not addressing it throughout raises concerns for us. That said, we will not be opposing the amendment in relation to advertising about pets and we 100 per cent support the data amendments.

Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (16:22): I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and The Greens for their support of the amendments. I also thank the Minister's staff, the departmental staff and the Rental Commissioner for their work with me, The Greens and others through the amendment process. I acknowledge the amount of time that has gone into negotiating some of the amendments. I acknowledge the point made by the member for Newtown. As the Minister and his staff know, when it comes to reforms around the application stage for rentals, I will be advocating in the strongest possible way to ensure that they are companion animal friendly policies and provide pathways for that. I think we can all agree that companion animals do a lot for our health and mental health, such as exercise, and we have so many beautiful companion animals in rescues that people in rentals could really benefit from having. I thank the Government for its support of the amendments, and I commend them to the House.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Clayton Barr): The question is that Mr Alex Greenwich's amendments Nos 1 to 3 on sheet c2024-204H be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (16:24): By leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 1, 4 and 5 on sheet c2024-199D in globo:

No. 1Commencement

Page 2, clause 2. Insert after line 6—

(a1)Schedule 1[12]—on 31 January 2025,

No. 4Information to be given with termination notice

Page 8, Schedule 1[12], proposed section 85(1), line 30. Omit "may". Insert instead "must".

No. 5Additional penalty amount

Page 8, Schedule 1[12], proposed section 85. Insert after line 39—

(4)If a landlord or landlord's agent is convicted of an offence under this section in relation to a residential tenancy agreement, the landlord or landlord's agent must pay an amount to the tenant equivalent to the bond amount.

(5)Subsection (4) applies in addition to a penalty that may be payable under subsection (2).

As my colleagues the member for Balmain and the member for Ballina and I have already expressed, The Greens wholeheartedly support the bill's prescription of specific grounds on which an eviction can occur. That said, certain elements of the bill can be tightened to ensure that the ban on no-grounds evictions is as effective as possible and maximises the positive impact that the significant reforms can have for tenants. The amendments specifically include ensuring that there is a hard deadline on the commencement of provisions that ban no-grounds evictions and replace them with a specific ground requirement; making the provision of evidence with a termination notice mandatory; and, finally, requiring a landlord who issues termination on grounds that are not genuine to provide compensation to a tenant.

It is absolutely critical that we strengthen the reforms as much as possible. While we appreciate there has been a lot of discussion with the Government about the amendments and acknowledge the way that both the Minister and his team have worked with us on the amendments, we recognise that the Government is not in a position to support the amendments. That said, we are putting them on the record because we believe it is critical for us to address the gaps that we have identified in the bill. Amendment No. 1 inserts subclause (a1) to require that schedule 1 [12] commence on 31 January 2025. Schedule 1 [12] makes specific grounds a requirement.

Currently, only the provisions in the bill that limit amounts payable by a tenant before entering into a rental agreement, that limit rent increases to once every 12 months for every lease type, and that appoint the NSW Rental Commissioner to the Rental Bonds Board will commence on the date of assent. The remainder of the bill will commence on proclamation, meaning there is no deadline by which these hugely significant reforms actually need to come into effect. That will only further contribute to the insecurity and uncertainty faced by renters. Given how long it has taken to enact the reforms and how much we know this is a contested space, The Greens have serious concerns with that. We also believe that components of the bill will require administrative and systems change, as well as education and information campaigns. While we recognise that some elements may not be able to have a deadline put on them, we believe there should be a deadline that everyone is collectively working towards on the no‑grounds eviction clauses.

The Greens' concerns around that are not unfounded. Members will recall in 2018 when both Houses of Parliament passed the Modern Slavery Act, with the Premier leading on the passage of that bill in this Chamber, but it never came into force in the form that it passed because the Government did not like what they would be required to then do. While we appreciate the Government is not interested in setting a specific deadline, we ask that the Minister provide some more detail of the timeline he is working with. Amendment No. 4 deals with the evidence that is to be provided and changes the word "may" to "must" to remove the risk that the regulations will not require evidence to be required. It is critical that we futureproof the legislation for future governments. While we know that that may be this Minister's intention, it may not be future Ministers' intentions.

Amendment No. 5 deals with compensation for tenants, which the bill does not address. As the bill is currently drafted, there are significant and very welcome penalties for landlords that game the system and fudge the evidence. However, in a cost-of-living crisis, there is no compensation for the tenant. That means the State government will, through its revenue collection as a result of a penalty being issued, collect in the order of tens of thousands of dollars, and yet the tenant who was falsely required to move will not receive a single cent. The amendment will see the tenant who is made to move under unlawful circumstances provided with compensation in the form of one month of bond. The Greens think it is only fair that both the tenant and the Government benefit from the penalties for a landlord who games the system. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Innovation, Science and Technology, Minister for Building, and Minister for Corrections) (16:29): I thank The Greens members and the rest of the crossbench for working so collaboratively with the Government to pass this very important reform to a rental market that certainly needs modernising. I state from the outset that the Government does not support the amendments. Amendment No.1 proposes to commence the changes to grounds for termination notices on 31 January 2025. The changes to end no-grounds evictions in the bill require landlords to have a valid reason to end a lease, currently intended to commence on a date set by proclamation. Before commencement, the Government must amend the Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 to provide supporting detail for the no-grounds and pet reforms. This includes, for example, prescribing the evidence that must be attached to a termination notice. These changes will be progressed as a matter of priority in the coming months.

The property management industry also needs to be given time to learn about the changes and adapt its own processes and forms so that they align with the new requirements. It is important that property managers understand the changes properly so the renters they deal with are given the benefit of the changes. The Government intends to roll out communications and education about the changes before they commence. The Government will also consult with key stakeholders in considering an appropriate commencement date for the changes to end no‑grounds terminations. An exact commencement date will be set once the regulation changes have been made and in consultation with stakeholders. The Government will keep stakeholders and parliamentary colleagues updated on the timeline for the commencement of the reforms, but it is expected that the ban on no‑grounds evictions will commence in early 2025.

Regarding amendment No. 4, the Government did not envisage that evidence would necessarily be prescribed for every ground. For example, there are grounds where the reason for a termination relates to a tenant's eligibility. A tenant already has the information about their own status as a student or as an eligible participant in an affordable accommodation program and does not need their landlord to give them evidence that they already know. The intention of the bill is that evidence will be required to accompany a termination notice when there is the risk of misuse of the ground to help ensure that the ground is genuine and to facilitate the tenant challenging the termination if it is not. The provision in amendment No. 5 is unnecessary. If a landlord makes a false termination, that is in breach of the Act. The tenant already has the ability under the Act to apply to the tribunal for an order for compensation. For those reasons, the Government opposes the amendments.

Mr TIM JAMES (Willoughby) (16:32): Once again, I will be brief. The Opposition will not be supporting the amendments.

Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (16:32): I thank the Minister specifically for his comments on compensation. The Greens look forward to strengthening the awareness campaign around compensation, if the Minister believes it will provide an avenue for renters. A lot of tenants are not in a position to take compensation action, which is one of the challenges that renters face. Tenants have the right to make a compensation claim through the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal [NCAT] process, but that requires a level of privilege, time, knowledge and expertise, so often renters cannot exercise that right. I put on record the significance of the evidence that was heard by the Select Committee on the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Prohibiting No Grounds Evictions) Bill 2024, which I chaired, about requiring landlords to provide evidence when claiming a specific ground.

This is crucial not just to stamp out dodgy behaviour and ensure transparency, but also, as the New England and Western Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service highlighted in its submission, because the current lack of evidence requirements allows landlords to issue terminations on the basis of discriminatory or bigoted grounds while claiming a legitimate ground like financial hardship. One of the concerns The Greens have is that there are no clear evidence requirements in the bill. The strength of evidence required needs to be objective so that tenants can make an informed decision about whether to challenge a termination notice through NCAT. The more transparency and visibility tenants have when they are issued with a termination notice, the less risk there is that compensation claims will clog up NCAT in the future. The Greens look forward to working with the Minister and the Government to put these reforms in place.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Clayton Barr): The question is that The Greens amendments Nos 1, 4 and 5 on sheet c2024-199D be agreed to.

Amendments negatived.

Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (16:35): By leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 2 and 3 on sheet c2024-199D in globo:

No. 2Unreasonable conditions

Page 6, Schedule 1[9], proposed section 73E(3). Insert after line 37—

(c1)a condition requiring a tenant to carry out or pay for maintenance works,

No. 3Approval of Tribunal required to refuse consent

Page 7, Schedule 1[9], proposed section 73F. Insert after line 25—

(1A)The landlord must apply to the Tribunal for the approval of the Tribunal before refusing to give consent.

(1B)If the landlord makes an application to the Tribunal under this section—

(a)the landlord must give written notice to the tenant of the application as soon as is reasonably practicable, and

(b)the period for giving a response to the tenant set out in section 73D(1)(b) is taken to commence when the Tribunal decides the landlord's application.

These amendments seek to improve provisions relating to pets, which The Greens do not see as much of a game changer compared with the no-grounds evictions reforms. Some members have spoken about their pets in this debate, and it may surprise many of them that amendment No. 3 crucially puts the onus on the landlord to request approval to refuse to give consent for a pet. This significant amendment requires the landlord to go to the tribunal if they do not consent to the tenant having a pet rather than the other way around, reversing the current onus. New section 73G creates a pathway whereby a tenant who has been refused consent or has been given consent with conditions that they consider to be unreasonable can appeal to the tribunal.

Amendment No. 3 reverses this onus by inserting subsections (1A) and (1B) into new section 73F, meaning that a landlord refusing consent for a pet must bear the onus of applying to the tribunal for permission. This is in keeping with The Greens' pets policy but is also built on the principle that people should be supported to have pets as part of their families and everyone should have the same right to have a pet, regardless of whether they rent or own. This is reflective of the fact that landlords and their agents have more resources and direct understanding of how the tribunal process works than many tenants in New South Wales. Landlords and their agents also have the ability and the power to take issues to the tribunal more easily than renters. In addition to making money from an investment property, they presumably have the relevant training, access to legal and financial advice and the qualifications to make informed decisions about taking matters to the tribunal.

Meanwhile, nearly 60 per cent of low- to moderate-income rental households in New South Wales live in rental stress and grapple with the very real and immediate pressures of housing insecurity and the cost‑of‑living crisis. Consulting with stakeholders in the domestic violence and animal welfare spaces to formulate a position on the bill, The Greens heard that placing the onus on renters to go to the tribunal is unacceptable. We also heard disappointment that the bill does not do anything to improve the application process. Again, I acknowledge that this work is underway. We must do everything we can to make it easier for people to have pets in their homes, including those fleeing domestic and family violence who are moving into new rental accommodation. We have heard consistently that the rental system needs to be animal inclusive by default, because that saves lives.

I thank the RSPCA, Domestic Violence NSW, Cat Protection Society of NSW, Lucy's Project, Sydney Dogs and Cats Home, and Companion Animal Network Australia for meeting with The Greens to discuss the bill. I also acknowledge them for their continued work and advocacy in this space. Together with the Tenants' Union of NSW and the Animal Welfare League NSW, these groups have recently facilitated a letter writing campaign that encouraged community members to get in touch with the Premier and urged Labor to go faster and harder on genuine reform around the application process in the allowance of pets. We strongly support that call. I also appreciate that everybody has put the name of their pet on the record. I give a shout out to Coco because it seems inappropriate to not do so.

We moved amendment No. 2 because we are concerned that the grim state of rental properties in New South Wales means that people have not requested maintenance changes because of the risk of potentially being booted out due to unfair no-grounds eviction. The amendment is critical to ensure that a landlord does not put the requirement that the tenant pay for basic maintenance as a condition of having a pet. We believe that this would be an unreasonable condition and the proposed subsection (c1) seeks to prevent this from happening. I commend these amendments to the House. I hope that the Minister will respond in relation to the concerns raised about those issues.

Under section 63 it is the landlord's obligation to provide and maintain the residential premises in a reasonable state of repair. The Act already prevents this responsibility from being passed on to the tenant. This is because terms that are inconsistent with the Act or regulations are void under section 21. Terms of an agreement are void if they exclude, limit or modify terms imposed by the Act. Under section 51 the tenant already has a responsibility to return the premises in nearly as possible the same condition at the end of the tenancy, except for fair wear and tear, so a landlord does not need to impose such a term requiring a tenant to carry out or pay for maintenance works.

I now turn briefly to the amendment that would require a landlord to apply to the tribunal before refusing to give consent to an application for a pet. Placing the onus on the landlord rather than the tenant to apply to the tribunal would, in effect, create a blanket acceptance of all pets by default. This would severely limit the landlord's ability to make a decision regarding their property, including weighing any likely risks arising from the animal residing at the premises. Importantly, the New South Wales model avoids tribunal consideration of every refusal, which could impose an unnecessary burden on landlords and the tribunal. However, the tenant will still be able to dispute a refusal at the tribunal if they believe the grounds specified for the refusal are not applicable, or where consent has been given subject to a condition that they believe is also unreasonable.

New section 73E (2) (b) will allow a landlord to require carpets to be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy if the renter keeps a pet, and further clarifies that this condition may be imposed only if reasonable for the type of animal and premises. Whether a landlord can impose a condition in relation to fumigation is unclear in the current Act. The Government considers that it is reasonable for a landlord wanting to ensure that any likely parasites are eliminated from the premises at the end of the tenancy, where the animal is a mammal, for example. This limitation recognises that not all animals carry the types of parasites that can be easily transferred to humans and can cause a persistent infestation. The drafting provides landlords with the assurance that the property will be cleaned and free of infestation without having to enter into a dispute with the tenant at the end of a tenancy. This protection is not just for the landlord but also for the next tenants who will reside at the property. I can assure the member for Newtown that NSW Fair Trading and the Rental Commissioner will monitor the implementation of the reforms.

Mr TIM JAMES (Willoughby) (16:44): I will be very brief and consistent. The Opposition does not support the amendments.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Clayton Barr): The question is that The Greens amendments Nos 2 and 3 on sheet c2024-199D be agreed to.

Amendments negatived.

Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (16:44): I move The Greens amendment No. 6 on sheet c2024‑199D:

No. 6Proposed sale of premises

Pages 10 and 11, Schedule 1[12], proposed section 87E, line 37 on page 10 to line 16 on page 11. Omit all words on the lines.

On principle, The Greens do not support the inclusion of the proposed sale of a residential premises as a specific ground for termination. Indeed, we never have. In bringing our own private member's bill to end no-grounds evictions earlier this year, and in consultation with stakeholders, we made the conscious decision to omit this ground. Amendment No. 6 would bring this bill in line with that bill, and indeed that position. To address concerns of those like the Tenants' Union of NSW, Shelter NSW and Better Renting, we wish to remove in its entirety new section 87E relating to "Proposed sale of premises".

It is not, and never has been, clear to The Greens at what point the sale of a property is considered to be "proposed". While we appreciate that new section 87E (1) (a) requires that the residential premises be offered for sale, the absence of information about evidence requirements means that the meaning is still unclear. We are moving this amendment because while we recognise the Government has made a policy decision to include "proposed sale" in the bill, we seek genuine clarification from the Minister in relation to what that means. Is the sale of a property proposed when a home owner first suggests this idea to their partner? Is it proposed when they message a real estate agent requesting information about fees to list a property? Is it only proposed once an advertisement for the property has gone live or they have signed a contract with a real estate agent to sell the property? Is it proposed once pamphlets gauging the interest of the off‑market sale have been letter boxed?

The evidence requirement here will be absolutely key. I appreciate that we are moving this amendment without seeing what the evidence requirement will be. We need to see an objective measure or something else that can clearly demonstrate the property is going on the market and is being proposed for sale. Without an evidence requirement that provides clear and tangible demonstration about the genuine intention to sell, there is a real risk that this will be used as a de facto no-grounds because of the subjective nature of this part of the specific grounds clauses in the bill.

In its submission to the inquiry into The Greens' bill, Shelter NSW was adamant that the preparation for sale, as opposed to the actual sale, is not good enough to evict a household of any type, highlighting existing provisions in the Act to enable termination if vacant possession is required at the time of sale. Shelter NSW went on to explain that evicting tenants on the basis of an intended sale:

… reduces the utilisation of existing housing stock, results in unnecessary forced moves (as the property may be sold to a residential investor who would have happily retained the tenants), and opens more possibilities for fraudulent terminations.

The inconvenience to a landlord or selling agent of having to navigate home viewings and interior decorations around the incumbent household must not win out over the inconvenience to the incumbent household of being evicted (potentially into homelessness).

The Greens agree with this analysis and share Shelter's position that a ground that does not require actual sale and the premises to be vacant will be prone to abuse and should not be included in the bill.

I thank Shelter NSW for its advocacy around all these rental reforms and housing affordability, and housing justice in this State. I acknowledge the team for their work. I appreciate the Government has made a decision in relation to this policy position, but I recognise that in other international jurisdictions it is indeed not the case that this is required. I also put on record the example shared by John Engeler from Shelter during the inquiry. He explained that there are many options for the Fair Trading and the Rental Commissioner to encourage negotiation about potential rent abatement and other issues. The options could address the desire, in some cases, to have open houses without the tenant's furniture and presence that would enable a discussion to occur without empowering a landlord to evict a tenant from their home before the property is sold. As such, I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Innovation, Science and Technology, Minister for Building, and Minister for Corrections) (16:49): I thank the member for Newtown for her contribution to the bill and for moving The Greens amendment No. 6. The Government does not support the amendment because new section 87E allows a landlord to prepare their property for sale and present it in a condition that best suits their needs. We understand that landlords need to obtain the best price for their property and that how the property is presented can affect what offers are received. That is only fair. While the Government understands that not everyone supports this grounds for termination, it strikes the right balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. It is open to the parties to negotiate arrangements that would allow the tenant to keep living in the property while it is prepared and offered for sale.

Mr TIM JAMES (Willoughby) (16:50): The Opposition does not support the amendment. The proposed sale of a property is a reasonable grounds for eviction. Accordingly, we do not support the amendment.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Clayton Barr): The question is that The Greens amendment No. 6 on sheet c2024-199D be agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (16:50): I move The Greens amendment No. 7 on sheet c2024‑199D:

No. 7Statutory review

Page 17, Schedule 1. Insert after line 39—

[21A]Section 229

Insert after section 228—

229Statutory review

(1)The Minister must review this Act to determine whether—

(a)the policy objectives of the Act remain valid, and

(b)the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing the objectives.

(2)The review must be undertaken as soon as possible after the period of 5 years from the commencement of this section.

(3)A report on the outcome of the review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months after the end of the period of 5 years.

This final amendment is designed to ensure that we do not just pass the bill and then consider all the rental reforms fixed and done. We can do so much more in relation to the Residential Tenancies Act. Reforms to end no‑grounds evictions are the bedrock on which all other rental reforms can be built. It is essential to continue work in this place to ensure that policies and laws to protect renters are as effective as possible. The Greens therefore move amendment No. 7 to insert new section 229 into the bill, requiring a statutory review of the entire Act after five years and a report on the outcome of the review to be tabled within 12 months. That review process is necessary to ensure that we are monitoring how the amendments in the bill and the Act overall are working and make informed decisions. I am pleased that the Government has indicated it will support this Greens amendment.

I note that the review will occur five years from now, which will be a full decade since the Residential Tenancies Act was reviewed. I put on record that the last statutory review of the Residential Tenancies Act occurred in 2018 and led to significant changes being agreed to in this Parliament, including capping rental increases for periodic agreements to once in 12 months, establishing basic habitability obligations for landlords, and prohibiting landlords and agents from publishing photos of a property in which a tenant's possessions are visible without their consent. I note that The Greens supported the passage of the bill that enabled those changes and supported what were unsuccessful amendments by the then Labor opposition that would have seen an end to no-grounds evictions all those years ago. It is important to put that on record, given that those members now sitting in opposition have expressed the position that the Government has taken too long to deliver these reforms.

While I agree with that in principle, I am the only member in the Chamber who is allowed to say that. In 2018 the then Opposition proposed an end to no-grounds evictions and the Liberal-Nationals Government opposed that reform. I also acknowledge that in 2018 The Greens sought to prohibit a blanket no-pets clause. It seems that now all members love pets in rentals. I welcome all members on board with the Greens' position from 2018. We still think it is unreasonable that rent for a property that is subject to four consecutive three-month leases over one year can be increased four times over 12 months. Once this reform is passed, we will certainly turn our attention to looking at how we can prevent successive rent hikes and place downward pressure on the market. I put all members on notice.

I conclude by expressing my gratitude to people who have been central to this reform. I acknowledge that the Rental Commissioner, Trina Jones, is in the Speaker's gallery. I also acknowledge the incredibly broad and successful consultation that was undertaken and led by her to change the debate on rental reform in this State. I thank Di from Fair Trading and Alicia from Minister Chanthivong's office for listening tirelessly to our endless amendments and discussions on the bill. I think Di and I have spoken about the Residential Tenancies Act more than most. I particularly pay tribute to Minister Chanthivong, who has delivered a reform in this Parliament when both Minister Dominello and Minister Kean were unable to do so. I pay tribute to him.

I also thank the member for Parramatta, the member for Cessnock, the member for Blue Mountains and the member for Willoughby, who were members of the Legislative Assembly Select Committee on the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Prohibiting No Grounds Evictions) Bill 2024, for their willingness to shift the focus of the inquiry after the Government's announcement of its own rental reform. It is incredibly heartening to see multipartisan support for this long overdue reform. The Greens look forward to working to continue to engage constructively with the Government around this to ensure that everybody in New South Wales has a safe rental home to live in.

Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Innovation, Science and Technology, Minister for Building, and Minister for Corrections) (16:55): The Government supports the amendment. We acknowledge that the changes in the bill are transformative, to say the least. They are a huge step towards bringing New South Wales rental laws into modernity. Renters, landlords and agents will have a new experience of renting. The Government understands that the breadth and importance of these changes warrant careful monitoring to ensure that they are operating as intended. A five-year timeframe for a statutory review is reasonable. It will allow stakeholders enough time to familiarise themselves with the new laws and to provide more meaningful and knowledgeable feedback for the review. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr TIM JAMES (Willoughby) (16:56): The Opposition supports the amendment.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Clayton Barr): The question is that The Greens amendment No. 7 on sheet c2024-199D be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Clayton Barr): The question is that clauses 1 and 2 and schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2 and schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Third Reading

Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.