In/formal housing - is more formality the answer?

This is the text of an address I gave to the Housing Theory Symposium 2019 on 30th May. Thank you to the organisers, Dr Jathan Sadowski whose tweet is linked below and Dr Sophia Maalsen, for the invitation. For those who were in the room, there may have been hesitation, repetition or deviation from these written notes which I have not adjusted to reflect.

The 2019 Housing Theory Symposium on in/formalism is in full swing! We have a brilliant keynote session with housing advocates @LeoPatRoss and @shelternsw, with @Planosopher launching a policy report on housing informality and vulnerability. pic.twitter.com/mnnhyHvsv8

— Jathan Sadowski (@jathansadowski) May 30, 2019

Thank you for inviting me to speak today. I’d also like to acknowledge that we have gathered on unceded lands of the Gadigal and pay my respects to elders past and present, and extend those respects to any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people in the room. It’s significant we are meeting in National Reconciliation Week whose theme is Grounded in Truth – a demand for a truth-telling that will allow all the people of this land to move forward together.

Australia has historically and continues to be adept at ignoring the suffering of people who it doesn’t really consider full citizens, and even furthering injustice through that wilful ignorance. While incomparable to the racially motivated horrors of Australian-Aboriginal relations, people who rent their homes – especially at the fringes of the private rental sector – suffer shades of this ignorance and lack of truth-telling – or perhaps, a lack of listening to the truth being told. Like water, and like housing, truth can be hard to grasp.

I’m to sketch out the housing landscape - I’m going to take a pretty broad view of that brief and sketch out some thoughts on how we have forgotten many people who rent their home.

An important part of how we construct informal housing is the support of the state for it. A property owner has the full weight of government seeking to enforce their right to housing, and profit.

Renters live under a patchwork of protections. The most formal tenants have legislated contracts, though with significant scope for customisation and therefore uncertainty and informality. There are some penalties where landlords fail to comply with the terms of the Act, but these are practically never applied.

So while landlords retain the weight of government to enact evictions and recover money, the vast majority of enforcement of the Act by tenants is by tenants. And where they do seek to enforce rights, they are subject to eviction, whether actual or the merely the possibility, in retaliation. The only real moderator of behaviour is the market - the risk of vacancy. An unreliable mechanism to be sure.

This is the best case scenario. Once you leave the Residential Tenancies Act, you may be covered by the Boarding Houses Act. You may be covered by the Australian Consumer Law if your landlord is considered to be in business. You may be covered with very little protection by the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1899. A very small number are still in rent-controlled premises under the amendment in 1948. But many, even tens of thousands are covered by no legislative scheme at all.

But should we simply seek to formalise?

Many of you would be familiar with the Commonwealth Housing Commission quote from the 40s:

“We consider that a dwelling of good standard and equipment is not only the need but the right of every citizen – whether the dwelling is to be rented or purchased, no tenant or purchaser should be exploited for excessive profit.”

We have fallen a long way from the promises of those early housing policies, as imperfect as they might have been. But I wanted to remind us all that much of the work of the CHC was in slum-clearances. This was absolutely the informal housing of its time and it is striking the similarities to much of the informal housing we’re seeing today and I know will be in some of the upcoming presentations.

Public housing at arguably its peak was often built on formalising the informal. While we might say it was necessary because of the conditions of that informal housing, we also should acknowledge that sometimes the people living in the slums weren’t able to access the public housing that replaced it because it was too expensive. Formalising the informal does not always achieve what we might assume.

There’s a few more examples I’d like to touch on in this vein.

A few years ago, if you wanted to travel the world on the cheap you could do a hostel or if you knew people in the area you might be able to couchsurf. Famously, that is the origin story of Airbnb. We are watching as it evolves from an informal activity to commercial and now becoming embedded in the legal system.

Over the last 25-30 years we’ve seen community housing groups evolved from local activists and social workers responding to community needs (and government neglect) to bureaucracies embedded very much in the formal structures, utilising heavy-handed state powers to manage their tenancies and gradually losing the local, responsive nature which was the basis for many people’s support for growing the sector.

Share-housing, what some may argue is the highest form of informal housing in Australia at least, where people report forming lasting friendships and de-facto families as they step in to adulthood, is also becoming commercialised through companies like Cocoon turning the sharehouse life into a curated experience - for a price.

Boarding houses, another long-standing sector which floats between the edges of formal and informal housing, is transforming - real estate agents increasingly manage who enters the house blocking some people who have relied on the sector for years. Emerging models like the micro-apartments known as new-gen boarding houses, build-to-rent, iglu, urbanest, all arguably take different features of boarding houses at different times in their history and seek to formalise them.

But we still have a problem - so how do we address it? I’d suggest that what was missing in 1940s, and is still missing now, in all the housing types I’ve mentioned is centring the needs and desires of people living in these homes. More than infrastructure, housing is an essential service. Like water, electricity, government has an obligation to ensure housing gets to people where, when and how they need it.

Like water, if we do not get the supply of housing right, it will get to people in uncontrolled ways, providing too much to some and preventing others from getting enough. Along the way, some of it might get tainted and become unhealthy, unsafe. There will always be luxury water, sold in little bottles. But if we ensure cheap tap water continues to flow then those who need it will never go thirsty.

The Limits of Rights and Protections: Housing as an Essential Service

This article by Leo Patterson Ross of the Tenants' Union of NSW and Mark Riboldi of Community Legal Centres NSW was published in the September issue of Parity, "Marginal Housing: Where to From Here?". We are pleased to have been given permission to republish here, and encourage you to consider subscribing to Parity for coverage of all aspects of homelessness; its causes and consequences and the policies, programs and services developed to prevent, respond to and, end homelessness.

Public policy relating to renting and tenancy is typically approached through two competing conceptions: consumer protection and human rights - are we regulating an economic exchange or ensuring that everyone has a roof over their heads? The problems resulting from these, governments resistant to enforceable rights mechanisms and not all tenancies being commercial transactions, mean too many people are denied adequate housing. Perhaps it’s time to explore a different way of framing this issue: through the lens of access to housing as public service provision.

Governments across Australia tend to approach tenancy as a subset of consumer protection, with Residential Tenancies Acts across the country being in the consumer affairs portfolio or equivalent. This implementation is inconsistent: under Australian consumer law, most residential tenancy landlords are not recognised as being ‘in trade or commerce’. At the same time, many marginal rental landlords, such as boarding or rooming houses, are recognised under the consumer law, though enforcement is rare.

The way renting is regulated through consumer affairs typically misunderstands the basics of the relationship between landlord and tenant. It generally conceives of two parties with roughly equal incentive coming together to create a contract. In a parallel example, a customer who walks into a TV shop will happily walk back out again without a TV if the price is not right, the product not suitable, or the salesperson not helpful. In terms of renting, landlords have the same financial incentive to make a ‘sale’ as the shop-owner, however tenants have a much greater need for shelter than the prospective TV watcher does for the latest episode of The Bachelor. This imbalance diminishes the ability for landlords and tenants to negotiate on equal terms and therefore to make renting fair government must intervene in the ‘market’ interactions.

Another problem caused by treating housing as a market place is the competition created between multiple parties seeking to live in a particular home. For potential ‘winners’, the lines of 30, 40, or more applicants creates the feeling of intense competition. But the reality is it only ever takes another applicant to be richer, whiter[i], or otherwise less of a ‘risk’ than you, for that home to remain out of reach. This environment pushes the ‘losers’ into increasingly substandard accommodation.

In comparison to this typical legislative approach, most housing advocates take a rights-based approach to housing, building on the right to housing enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and more fully explored in the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[ii] and Civil and Political Rights[iii].

A key component of the right to adequate housing not implemented in Australia, which is not at all addressed by a consumer affair approach, is legal security of tenure. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights explains: “Notwithstanding the type of tenure, all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats.”[iv]
 
With Australia’s general lack of constitutional or legislative rights frameworks, these rights to housing suffer from being neither recognised nor legally actionable in Australian jurisdictions, except in limited circumstances for public housing tenants in Victoria and the ACT. An unenforceable right is barely a right at all, and it’s questionable how many people think of the right to housing in the same way the think of the rights to freedom of assembly or speech. Framing issues around rights is additionally challenging: advocates and experts tend to talk about rights as individual objects existing on paper, created by lawyers; this is dissonant with the everyday reality of people’s lives, and from the right to housing as something that is innate or enacted by caring communities. From a housing advocate’s point of view, shifting both public opinion and government policy from a consumer affairs to a human rights framework may be a mountain too high and steep.

Another problem is that public discourse and campaigning around ‘renters’ rights’ in Australia focusses heavily on people in more formal residential tenancies – namely standard arrangements between landlords and tenants, typically brokered through real estate agents. Far less attention is given to the rights of residents in other forms of renting, particularly marginal housing forms like boarding and rooming houses, lodgings in private residences, public housing and residential parks tenancies. In every jurisdiction except the Australian Capital Territory multiple forms of marginal housing are not covered by legislation. Even in the ACT, effective coverage is limited.

This unfortunate phenomenon is understandable. Residential tenancies impact a broader proportion of the population, affecting social groups with greater social capital and power than the frequently more marginalised residents of, for example, boarding houses. Broad support is important for successfully shifting public policy and governments, which tend drag behind both academic consensus and popular opinion. In terms of renters’ rights, this makes it crucial for advocates to frame the issue in a way that is inclusive of marginal renters.

To achieve this, and to break the dissonance between housing as consumer affair or human right, an alternate conception may be to refocus on housing as the provision of an essential service, in a similar way that we look at education, health and transport. In the Australian context, all of these to varying degrees operate in a mixed public service / private provider policy environment, where public debate revolves around how much should be accessible free-of-charge. Such an approach may be more palatable to lawmakers turned off by the concept of human rights enshrined in legislation.
Importantly however, it also comes without the degradation of purpose that can accompany pragmatic solutions to thorny issues, such as the current trend towards not-for-profit housing as a response to a public housing approach governments have underfunded into failure.[v]
 
Recognising housing as an essential service offers a number of advantages in terms of advocating for improved conditions for people in marginal housing. While there is fierce political debate about how best to supply essential services, no credible decision-maker in Australia would be willing to argue that simply having a lower income should exclude a person from having access to clean water, healthcare or a high school education.

A public service approach would necessitate state and federal Ministers for Housing to ensure that the housing supply chain was functioning properly, and that the ultimate use of the shelter was regulated appropriately. This would require a realignment of the ministers currently responsible for planning, social housing and renting regulation.

Recognising housing as an essential service means sensible legislative reform to ensure that laws around renting are no longer a patchwork of coverage with cracks for marginalised people to fall through. Under this framework all renting contracts, whether an inner-city boarding house, a lodging in a family home, or a mainstream residential tenancy would then include:
· protection from unfair and arbitrary evictions, and
· requirements that homes be of adequate comfort and safety, and
· effective and accessible dispute resolution mechanisms, including of eviction decisions.

Housing as essential service cuts across the prevailing legislative framework of renting as commercial transaction. If we can reframe housing as an essential service, we will be less likely to accept the current restrictions to access, the arbitrary cut-offs through evictions and the overpricing of supply, particularly in the informal sector. While Australians are generally accustomed to private entities delivering public services, people are becoming increasingly aware that the corporate ‘efficiencies’ and ‘choice’ provided by profit-driven entities do not necessarily equate to quality services, take for example recent criticisms of the private health insurance rebate, the underperformance of for-profit superannuation funds, or the concerns about unscrupulous players in the aged care sector which sparked the recent Royal Commission.

Reframing housing as an essential public service will be a challenge, but it’s clear that we need to find effective ways to shift the political discourse and legislative framework away from housing and renting as simply consumer transactions. Rather than a move away from a rights-based approach, we suggest exploring a different way of advocating for these rights that is both inclusive of marginal renters and builds on the existing support for a various public and community delivered services as foundation stones for fair, vibrant and inclusive communities.

[i] MacDonald H., Nelson, J., Galster G., Paradies Y., Dunn, Kevin M & Dufty-Jones R. (2016) "Rental Discrimination in the Multi-ethnic Metropolis: Evidence from Sydney", Urban Policy and Research, 34(4), 373-385
[ii] Article 11, https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx
[iii] Article 17, https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
[iv] Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: General comment No. 4: The right to adequate housing (art. 11 (1) of the Covenant) (1 Jan 1992). Available at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=9&DocTypeID=11
[v] Emma R. Power & Tegan L. Bergan (2018): Care and Resistance to Neoliberal Reform in Social Housing. Housing, Theory and Society.

Happy anniversary, Residential Tenancies Act - part 3

Here on the Brown Couch we're still celebrating the 5th anniversary of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010's passage into law - even though it's been more than a month since the actual date. We're excited because this anniversary means the Act must now be reviewed, and while it does have some good parts we reckon it needs more than just a tune-up.

It's a bit of a fixer-upper...

We started our celebrations with a look at the policy objectives or the Act, and we discussed how the New South Wales rental market has changed over the last five years. As it happens, there's a whole lot more of it... more tenants, more rent, more landlords, more debt, more high prices, more tenants, more rent - you get the picture. Now this might come as a surprise to some, such as those who suggested the market might dry up if, for example, landlords had to install water efficiency measures before passing on water usage costs to tenants. But it's no surprise to us.

And it's no surprise that tenants aren't doing as well as others out of it, either, given the architects of the Act set out to 'balance' the interests of those looking for wealth in the rental market with those who live in it. If such a balance is possible, or even desirable, it hasn't been achieved, and the New South Wales rental market remains a dangerous place to live. This can be fixed.

When the Act is reviewed, this question of balance needs to be revisited. Increased investment amid rocketing house prices over the last five years should give the NSW Government an incredible amount of comfort that shoring up the position of tenants will have no impact on landlords' appetite for more. Landlords will always occupy a position of relative power in their relationships with tenants - they own the property, they call the shots. Our renting laws should be designed to protect tenants from the careless, reckless or deliberate exercise of that power to their detriment, at the same time as ensuring they take responsibility for their own detrimental acts or omissions within this relationship. That's less about balance, and more about acknowledging how the power imbalance actually works.

There are a couple of key points where the Residential Tenancies Act completely fails to do this, and these should be the focus of its review. Most notably, the Act allows landlords to end tenancies without a reason, which makes the rental market extremely insecure for those who live in it. It also makes tenants very wary about how and why they approach landlords on questions of repairs and maintenance, or whether a rent increase is justified, or perhaps even how often they've been coming around to check up on the place...

The Tenants' Union says we should make ending tenancies without a reason a thing of the past. This will be very easy to do, by replacing the 'no grounds' provisions in the Act with a number of grounds on which landlords might genuinely need to end a tenancy. The question should be whether the landlord has a valid purpose that genuinely requires the property to be vacant, because displacing an established household should require nothing less than a good reason.

Then there are the provisions about repairs and maintenance. Currently, the law lets landlords off the hook too easily for failing to carry out repairs. Tenants can observe this in two ways: first, when they try to get repairs done; and second, if they try to end their tenancy because repairs are unsatisfactory. The problem is that landlords can avoid their repair obligation by showing they have acted with 'reasonable diligence' - which may sound fair enough on a first reading, but what it does is actually not fair enough at all. It moves the question of what the landlord has done to repair something away from the question of what else they could be doing, and places it instead within the question of whether there is a need to fix something at all. The Tenants' Union says this can be made better by moving the 'reasonable diligence' considerations to the question of remedy, rather than breach, when a tenant asks for repairs.

And of course, there are issues around how and when landlords can increase rents. We've been involved in quite a bit of talk about these issues of late, as have others. The law allows landlords to increase rents almost at will, leaving it up to tenants to put the brakes on rent hikes by showing them to be excessive. The Tenants' Union says this is not reasonable, as it is more often the case that landlords will have access to the kind of information needed to show such a thing. Instead, landlords should be required to show that a proposed increase is not excessive, if it is to exceed the consumer price index. For proposed increases that are below this index, it could remain up to tenants to show how they are excessive.

There are several other aspects of the legislation that should be given a seriously close look during the course of the coming review. These include the coverage of the Act, which expressly excludes a number of renters on the basis of the type of accommodation they rent, or the kind of agreement they have - and for most of these marginal renters there is no other statutory regime to give them consumer rights, or giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to mediate disputes with their accommodation providers. Included in this category are a growing number of share-house residents who might believe themselves to be tenants - and for whom the substance of their agreement with a head-tenant may give rise to such a belief - only to be left out of the Act because they have not committed to their agreement in writing. This needs to change.

Finally, there are the new provisions that regulate the use of residential tenancy databases. These are generally good, but they have left a few small gaps that need to be plugged so that database operators can't continue to exploit them. In particular, the definition of a residential tenancy database is too narrow; there needs to be a requirement to prove debts if they are to be the reason for a database listing; and database operators need to be discouraged, with penalty terms, from charging excessive fees to tenants who ask to see their listing.

Of course, after watching it, working with it, and living with it for nearly five years we know that many other parts of the Act could use a little attention. We've recently produced a detailed report outlining where we think more changes should be made, which you can download and share from our website.

The coming review is an opportunity for tenants and advocates to talk loudly about what we know - the big stuff, and the small stuff too. This opportunity may not come around again for some time, so let's make the most of it.

Let's make sure these questions continue to be asked: what do we like about our current renting laws? What needs to change? How do we bring about the kind of Residential Tenancies Act we want for New South Wales, where we live?

Boarding House Residents Stories: Ronald

Welcome to our series of Boarding House Residents Stories exploring a range of residents experiences in boarding houses. The stories have been collected and written by Sally Chalmers, Resources & Development, Boarding House Services, Newtown Neighbourhood Centre.

When he was a young man, Ronald Bell moved with family to Sydney where they lived in a boarding house in Pyrmont for five years. The place had eight rooms, board was $2 per week and included a furnished room with a laundry service.

It was close to the railways where Ronald and the boys worked doing mail runs across NSW. He laughs as he tells a story about catching (and occasionally missing) the mail bag with a giant hook!
At that time, boarding houses were for men only and mostly housed people from country areas, who needed somewhere affordable to stay while they visited or worked in the city.

When his father passed away, Ronald moved to another boarding house in Glebe where he lived for 10 years. Again this place had eight rooms, all the residents worked, and there were never any problems living there. You got good cheap accommodation for a good price.

Visitors were allowed, and sometimes stayed over. Ronald talks about sleeping on the floor in his room or another resident’s room when someone came to stay with him. There was no curfew or visiting hours, but all residents tended to respect one another’s privacy. There were furnished communal areas inside and out where residents got together and socialised. As there were a number of bathrooms and a good-sized kitchen with working appliances, there were seldom issues with sharing facilities. The house was well kept by the owner.

Ronald has been living in a Newtown boarding house since 1983. His only remaining family connection lives outside of Sydney.

The boarding house has 10 rooms and he says that he loves living there. He knows all of the residents – even the 18 year old! He feels as though there is a sense of community in the house.

Sometimes the other guys check in on him and see if he wants help with washing or chores. Although the house is old and could do with some repairs, it doesn’t bother him.

Ronald’s room is small but homely and hundreds of his drawings and DVDs cover every available space, with a big TV in the middle. He loves his Meals on Wheels, which he heats up in his microwave. He is very content with his private space in a communal house. He doesn’t have to be social all the time but can join other residents when he feels like it. Ronald is spending a lot more time in his room of late. He used to get out regularly for shopping and social outings but he is due for a hip replacement in coming months.

Although he lives on the ground floor, the steep steps up to the front door are more and more difficult as time goes by. He’s hoping the boarding house manager will invest in a rail soon.

Ronald's story originally appeared in the Tenant News #107. For more information on boarding houses, why not subscribe to Onboard, our new e-bulletin all about Boarding Houses? For individual advice about issues in a boarding house, or any tenancy issues, contact your local Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service.

Boarding House Residents Stories: Nina

Welcome to our series of Boarding House Residents Stories exploring a range of residents experiences in boarding houses. The stories have been collected and written by Sally Chalmers, Resources & Development, Boarding House Services, Newtown Neighbourhood Centre.

For the past 3 years Nina, aged 64, has been living in a large boarding house in Marrickville. The property has about 100 rooms (single and shared) filled with men and women of all ages and walks of life seeking affordable accommodation ($150-$180/week) in Sydney’s Inner West. There is only one manager for the complex and they don’t live on site.

Prior to living here she had been staying at an inner-city crisis accommodation for women and families. When Nina needed to move out, her options were extremely limited as her low income and lack of rental history made it very difficult to find affordable and accessible accommodation. Getting on the waiting list for Housing NSW was possible, but the wait would be more than 3 years. Even if she had the required bond money, the necessary paperwork and references required for private rental were non-existent.

So she moved, with her daughter, into a single room at the boarding house. It was convenient as she didn’t need to pay bond, and they could share the rent. One slept in the bed and the other on the floor until eventually her daughter found alternative lodgings.

The condition of the premises is poor, quite unhygienic and the manager only calls in to collect rent from the residents. Nina cooks in her room to avoid using the communal areas; which in itself is a safety hazard. She says that ‘keeping busy is her saviour’ and spends her days out and about, volunteering and taking part in community activities, such as those on offer at Newtown Neighbourhood Centre.

It is evident that her current living situation puts her safety at risk. Police are called to the boarding house so often to solve disputes between residents or to address antisocial behaviour, often fuelled by drugs and alcohol, that locals refer to it as ‘the other Marrickville Police Station’. Nina has learned to avoid areas where difficult residents gather, and to not engage with them, as it only leads to confrontations.

When asked about her future accommodation options, she says that it’s too much hassle and too expensive to move. Nina feels that having a roof over her head is a blessing, and she feels bad for rough sleepers. She knows she is in a better position than many people so is happy with her lot.

Nina's story originally appeared in the Tenant News #107. For more information on boarding houses, why not subscribe to Onboard, our new e-bulletin all about Boarding Houses? For individual advice about issues in a boarding house, or any tenancy issues, contact your local Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service.

Boarding House Residents Stories: Gretta

Welcome to our series of Boarding House Residents Stories exploring a range of residents experiences in boarding houses. The stories have been collected and written by Sally Chalmers, Resources & Development, Boarding House Services, Newtown Neighbourhood Centre.

Gretta moved to Sydney from the Central Coast for a few important reasons. Firstly, to be in a better place for proximity to support services and transport, and secondly but more importantly, so she could access the social networks and activities that help her to enjoy life.

Being diagnosed with bipolar disorder means sometimes life is very challenging for Gretta. She has learned to manage this illness over time and with the right medication, but still struggles with other physical health conditions as well. Despite these illnesses, Gretta is full of humour and has a positive outlook, even though she has had some very difficult times finding a place to call home during her years in Sydney.

She’s lived in a women’s refuge and had social housing briefly in Redfern – where she mentions that someone actually held a syringe to her throat over a cigarette! Most of her accommodation has been in boarding houses in the Inner West.

When she first moved from the refuge into a boarding house she liked the independence, but felt very scared of being in a new place. Some residents would come back late at night, very drunk. The other residents would not ask them to be quiet or call the police as they didn’t want to bring trouble to themselves, and as the only woman in the house Gretta would just keep her door firmly locked. She moved from place to place to try and find one that suited her. She doesn’t mind her current place as it is in a suburb she likes, near transport and there are only six other residents which also makes it feel more like a home.

Gretta feels that her current living arrangement is acceptable, but it also contributes to her bipolar condition. She’d like to have her friends over but doesn’t because other people in the house always want to know what’s going on even when it’s not their business. She says about her condition, “It’s very frustrating when you know how you want things to be and they just can’t be that way. I feel angry but if I show this then I’m likely to be booted out and back to square one, and this is why I isolate myself more.”

Gretta is on a disability support pension. When asked how she manages financially she says “Rent always comes first. I can always go to a food van for the other basics.” When asked about finding private rental she laughs and talks honestly about how it’s impossible to find something on her own for less than $300/week. She has tried to save up but it’s impossible to save a 4-6 week deposit on her low income – as well as paying a month in3 advance. It’s not only the money that’s difficult. She talks about the hugely overwhelming task of getting a lease. The forms and paperwork are very hard to understand and her rental history makes it difficult to get a good and reliable reference which is a priority for estate agents. She says “I do want to find my own place but I just can’t afford it – unless I live in my own cardboard box somewhere!”

Gretta is a very outgoing individual when her mental health is going well, and participates in a theatre group called ‘Milk Crate Theatre’. When she visits the Neighbourhood Centre in Newtown, she often sits and chats with a group of friends or workers. She’s doing a Diploma of Community Services, and is looking forward to working as a social worker or in counselling, where she feels her experience will be instrumental in helping those facing similar challenges to herself.

Gretta's story originally appeared in the Tenant News #107. For more information on boarding houses, why not subscribe to Onboard, our new e-bulletin all about Boarding Houses? For individual advice about issues in a boarding house, or any tenancy issues, contact your local Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service.

Boarding House Residents Stories: Tony

Welcome to our series of Boarding House Residents Stories exploring a range of residents experiences in boarding houses. The stories have been collected and written by Sally Chalmers, Resources & Development, Boarding House Services, Newtown Neighbourhood Centre.

Within minutes of talking to Tony for the first time, he has painted you a clear picture of how he came to be in Newtown renting a single room in a boarding house for $172/week. This is the first boarding house he has ever lived in and he has now been there for around 12 months. There are 13 rooms in this house.

Serving in (and surviving) Vietnam may have contributed to his ability to battle on despite what comes his way. Now 63, his life’s ups include two marriages, having children and a successful career, but these positives have been punctuated by very difficult times such as caring for his ill wife, being widowed, surviving cancer, and his more recent separation from his second wife and young child.

Tony’s relationship breakdown, separation and his subsequent poor financial position meant that boarding house accommodation was the only real option for him at this point in his life. He currently receives a government Newstart allowance, more than half which he spends on rent. While his rental history would have given him access to the private market, the bond plus the setting-up costs of private, unfurnished accommodation was well beyond his means.

When he first arrived he was shocked at the condition of the house. He felt it was unclean, had a ‘fierce’ odour, and there was much disrepair in the communal living areas – particularly the bathrooms and kitchen which he still won’t enter due to the horrific state they are in.

The manager (an elderly male resident) does not engage in any regular cleaning or arranging repairs so many areas are damaged, rundown and dirty. Appliances, the water heater and gas stoves are often broken. Loose power cords and over-filled power points are a common sight.

Tony himself cleaned the top bathroom for almost a month just to get it up to a standard where he felt he could shower there. Tony regularly washes his bedding and uses two cans of insecticide per fortnight to keep the bed bugs at bay.

He still gets bitten.

When asked about the other residents in the house, Tony shakes his head. He advises that when entering a boarding house, people need to be prepared for dysfunction and residents regularly using medications or drugs and alcohol. He believes that 80% or moreof the residents have absolutely no idea about respect for others (or themselves). Most of them don’t work, and spend little time outside of the premises.

Since living here he has experienced antisocial behaviour, violence and unreasonable levels of noise. The police are called to the house regularly to settle disputes between residents. The manager is nowhere to be found when this occurs.

This Newtown boarding house was easy to access, affordable, close to amenities and gives him his independence while he sorts out his other priorities. He feels that his current position is only temporary, making him able to accept the not-so-acceptable living standards. He feels that the duty of care of the operator is ‘next to nothing’.

Tony is keen to take legal action regarding the unacceptable conditions in the house, and knows what he needs to do. However, Tony has chosen to do this when he is ready to leave, because of his fear of being evicted instantly for standing up to the landlord. He has seen this happen to several residents since he arrived. He is optimistic that his current housing status is not forever so is staying positive and making the best of his situation.

Tony's story originally appeared in the Tenant News #107. For more information on boarding houses, why not subscribe to Onboard, our new e-bulletin all about Boarding Houses? For individual advice about issues in a boarding house, or any tenancy issues, contact your local Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service.

Roomshare sector not complying with boarding house reforms

When the NSW State Government introduced the Boarding Houses Act 2012, it set out to address not only traditional boarding house establishments, but also houses and flats rented out in shared accommodation arrangements. This is the 'roomshare' sector, and it is often targeted to students and low-income workers, especially from overseas.

A few months ago the TU did some research into the roomshare sector, to get an idea of the extent to which the Boarding Houses Act applies to it (as 'general boarding houses', as defined by the Act), and the extent to which general boarding houses in the roomshare sector are complying with the requirement in the Act to be registered with NSW Fair Trading.

To do this we looked at roomshare ads on the online classifieds site, Gumtree.  

(A space on the branch rents for $150 per week)

Over five weeks we looked at Gumtree and found, on average, about 1 400 roomshare premises advertised each week (by contrast, there were 598 general boarding houses registered on Fair Trading's Register of Boarding Houses).

We analysed 224 ads to see whether the premises advertised fit the definition of 'general boarding house' at section 5 of the Act, and found:

• 26 per cent very likely to be general boarding houses; and another
• 18 per cent may be general boarding houses.

Of these, just two (0.5 per cent) were actually registered as general boarding houses.

On the basis of our analysis, we conclude that:

• the roomshare sector is a large – if not the largest – part of the general boarding house sector;
• it is hugely – almost completely – non-compliant with the requirement to register; and
• its compliance with other aspects of the Boarding Houses Act, and other laws, is doubtful, to say the least.

The job of enforcing the registration requirement lies with local councils; we recommend that they more actively investigate the roomshare market and exercise their role.

We also recommend that the NSW State Government, local councils and representatives of boarding house residents and proprietors work together to

• clarify what really can and should be expected of the roomshare sector, particularly in relation to planning law and local government legislation;
• establish protocols to minimise hardship to residents where action is taken to stop roomshare premises operating; and
• inform the development of policies for affordable housing to appropriate standards.  

Read the report here.

International students and housing survey

The Tenants' Union of NSW is conducting a survey of international students and their experiences of housing in Australia. Please spread the word – and the link to the survey!

*

Are you an international student?

Are you happy in your housing?

Do you know your rights? 

We want to hear about your experiences with housing in Australia. 
Your participation will help us better understand and provide support and advocacy for international students on housing issues.

Complete this short survey about housing and go into the draw to win a $50 gift card.


www.tenantsunion.org.au/internationalstudents

About us: The Tenants' Union of NSW is the peak non-government organisation representing the interests of tenants and other renters in New South Wales, Australia.

New terms lodged in boarding house agreements

Yesterday, residents of registrable boarding houses were granted new terms in the contracts they have with the proprietor of the boarding house.

Accommodation in registrable NSW boarding houses has had to be in accordance with the Occupancy Principles since July 1st this year but yesterday the flick of a legal magician's wand also inserted adherence to the principles as contractual rights in every agreement between a boarder or lodger in a registrable boarding house and their proprietor.

This means a number of remedies for breaches of the agreement have become available to boarding house residents though without protection from retaliatory terminations many residents may be understandably hesitant to bring action against the proprietor.

556 premises have registered on NSW Fair Trading's Boarding House Register so far- we congratulate those proprietors. There are many many more who have not yet registered. Homelessness NSW made a ballpark estimate that there could be as many as 20 000 boarding houses in NSW- the problem is, they can be very hard to find. ABS only recorded 627 boarding houses in NSW in the 2011 Census. Homelessness researcher Chris Chamberlain found the ABS methodology in Melbourne resulted in a significant undercount. By comparing his work with the 2011 Census count for Melbourne we can see that at best 16% of boarding houses were counted. If we apply the same multiplier here in NSW then we get a figure of at least 3700 boarding houses.

Some are recognisable, and known to be boarding houses, but many are not. A quick search of Gumtree's room share advertisements found more than 1400 ads- a large proportion of which are apartments and houses that fit the definition of a registrable boarding house, but don't necessarily identify as such. The proprietors may not even think of themselves as boarding houses- this is where it will take some time and effort from local councils and NSW Fair Trading as well as industry groups to ensure that registration occurs. 

The good news for residents of places that are unregistered, but registrable, boarding houses is that not registering does not change the law for residents. The occupancy principles apply, and are now contractual terms, whether or not the boarding house is registered, and whether or not the agreement is in writing.

For more information on the way the Boarding House Act affects residents rights, see our factsheet or call your local Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service!

New rights for boarding house occupants in New South Wales

Today the Boarding Houses Act 2012 commences in full.

Until now, only the provisions of the Act concerning the registration (and register) of boarding houses have been put into operation. Today the remaining provisions, including those concerning occupancy principles and occupancy agreements, have also become part of the law of New South Wales.

The Tenants' Union has produced a new factsheet about the Boarding Houses Act 2012, and you can read about it in more detail in an updated chapter in our Tenants' Rights Manual. No doubt we'll talk a whole lot more about its ins and outs over the coming months, as we start to see it in operation.

But for now, let's take a minute to reflect on where this new law has come from,* and just how far it will take us...

Housing advocacy groups such as the Tenants' Union of NSW have lobbied for boarding house reform since the mid-1970's. For most of that time a convincing strategy to produce statutory rights for boarders and lodgers never materialised in Parliament, although some attempts were made.

When the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 passed through the Houses of Parliament in the late 1980s the then Minster for Consumer Affairs, the hon. Deirdre Grusovin, assured boarders and lodgers that legislative protections would be provided for them soon, too. But, although a Boarding Houses and Lodging Houses Bill 1991 was largely agreed to in Parliament, disagreement as to minimum periods of occupancy before the law should apply meant that the bill would never make it into the NSW statute books.

Some years later a differently constituted NSW Government indicated it would examine ways to protect the rights of people living in boarding houses. A period of discussion and consultation ensued, and in early 1998 it was expected that the then Minister for Fair Trading, the hon. Brian Langton, would release an exposure draft of new legislation. A coalition of organisations called the Boarders and Lodgers Action Group (BLAG) - of which the Tenants Union was a member - anticipated that the exposure draft would be riddled with shortcomings, and did not expect to be able to support it. BLAG drew up its own Boarders Bill 1999, to present a clear alternative to the policies anticipated in the Government's bill.

This effectively killed off the Carr Government's ambitions for boarders and lodgers rights. It sent supporters of reform within Parliament into a spin, of sorts, and presented uncertainty as to the way forward for boarders and lodgers rights in New South Wales. By this time the phrase 'boarders and lodgers' had come to describe the large and diverse group of renters that were not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1987. No agreement could be reached as to who should be covered by a new law, and which particular rights and obligations should apply to each of the identified groups of accommodation that boarding and lodging denoted. In the circumstances, the Government lacked the political will to argue in favour of a new bill, and the project was abandoned. The anticipated 1998 exposure draft never saw the light of day.

But BLAG's Boarders Bill 1999 lived on. For many years it was used by members of BLAG as an advocacy tool, in the hope that the Government would re-commit to a position on legislative rights for boarders and lodgers. It was a commitment that never came.

In 2005, the Tenants' Union of NSW moved away from arguing for the 'prescriptive rights' regime proposed by the Boarders Bill 1999, and began to advocate instead for a non-prescriptive 'occupancy principles' model based on changes that had recently been made to renting laws in the Australian Capital Territory. These principles would form the basis of a range of standard occupancy agreements, providing a minimum set of commitments to be made by a boarding house operator to a prospective occupant, while allowing the details of rights and obligations to be determined according to the needs of parties to each kind of agreement. This meant that a variety of occupancy agreements, based on a consistent set of rights-based principles, could be used across the range of rental accommodation types to which existing laws did not apply.

The policy gained traction, but was not picked up by the NSW Government during their review and redraft of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987. When the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 became law on January 31st 2011, there were still a number of rental accommodation types that were expressly excluded from the Act's coverage. For housing advocates, rights for boarders and lodgers - along with other marginal renters - became part of the unfinished business of tenancy law reform.

The Tenants' Union produced a four-point plan to reform the marginal rental sector, of which occupancy principles was a major component. The plan was endorsed and promoted by a coalition of housing advocacy organisations in early 2011. Not long after, an 'Inter-Departmental Committee on Reform of Shared Private Residential Services' released a discussion paper called Boarding House Reform. This paper recommended the adoption of occupancy principles and agreements for boarding house residents in New South Wales.

Then, on May 10th 2012, the NSW Government announced that it would introduce laws to reform the boarding house sector. A great deal of work has since gone into bringing the Boarding Houses Act 2012 to its full commencement today. Congratulations to all who have played their part - it's quite an achievement.

But the Boarding Houses Act 2012 is not the solution it could have been for all marginal renters in New South Wales. There will still be many people living in rented accommodation who have no access to statutory rights and formal mechanisms to resolve disputes about the terms of their rental agreements. Lodgers in private residences, some clients of refuges, crisis and supported accommodation, students in residential colleges, occupants of shared households and some caravan park residents are still waiting for a statutory regime that affords them protection against unfair eviction, rent increases, and refusal to meet minimum standards of repair.

This makes no sense. The occupancy principles model that is now law in New South Wales could very easily - and effectively - be applied to all who are not otherwise covered by renting laws in New South Wales.

This business remains unfinished.


*Some of the occurrences referred to in this post are a little before your correspondent's time. Parts of this account cannot be verified by reference to Hansard or other official records. Where required, The Brown Couch has relied on documents from the TU's archive. If you are able to provide an alternative account of the circumstances behind either the 1991 or 1999 boarders' rights bills, please leave a comment...

Update on Boarding Houses Act 2012

The new Boarding Houses Act 2012, which was passed by the NSW State Parliament in October, has yet to commence.

Our latest advice from the State Government is that it will commence in stages: first, the provisions about the Boarding Houses Register in January 2013; then the rest of the Act sometime after that.

In our view, there's no technical reason why the provisions about occupancy agreements couldn't commence sooner rather than later. We're taking this up with the State Government.

Boarding Houses Act 2012

The NSW State Government's Boarding Houses Bill has passed through both Houses of the Parliament. It just needs the Governor's signature and we'll have a Boarding Houses Act 2012.

(Charles Blackman, Self-portrait in front of a boarding house)

The Act has not commenced operation yet. We understand that the Government intends for it to commence 1 January 2013.

This is a landmark reform. Under the Act, residents of registrable boarding houses will have, for the first time, an enforceable entitlement to written agreements and written receipts.

They'll also have, for the first time, agreements that must comply with certain basic occupancy principles. These include entitlements to premises that are in a reasonable state of repair, to know the house rules before moving in, to quiet enjoyment, to know why and how the occupancy may be ended, including how much notice is to be given, and to be given reasonable notice of termination. They also include safeguards against penalty terms and unfair utility charges, and a limit on bonds to two weeks' rent. 

Residents will also have, for the first time, straight-forward access to dispute resolution in the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal.

If these things seem basic and modest, they are – which says a lot about the very rough deal that boarding house residents have gotten from proprietors, and from the law, for too long.

The Act also establishes a Boarding Houses Register – so you will be able to check if the premises are registered, and find out the name of the proprietor – and directs councils to inspect premises for compliance with building and fire safety requirements. Finally, the Act revamps the regulatory regime for LRCs – now called 'assisted boarding houses'.

As we say, it is a landmark... but not the final destination of reform. Beyond this piece of legislation, there's still more to do. 

We still need to develop standard forms of occupancy agreement for the different types of boarding house accommodation (as provided for by the Act). 

We still need further law reform to extend the occupancy principles to marginal renters who don't live in registrable boarding houses (such as lodgers in private homes, share houses, student accommodation, and refuges and crisis accommodation) and who are excluded from residential tenancies legislation.

And finally, we need the deliberate and orderly winding up of the assisted boarding house sector, with residents assured of appropriate accommodation in social housing, groups homes or nursing homes, and properly funded professional support.

But as we reach the present landmark, we pause and congratulate the NSW State Government, and in particular the Disability Services Minister, Andrew Constance, who had carriage of the reforms. And we congratulate all those community workers, advocates and, especially, boarding house residents, who, over so many years, have spoken out against the injustices of marginal renting and who have kept pressing the case for reform.

Boarding Houses Bill 2012: TU comment

This afternoon the NSW State Government introduced its Boarding Houses Bill 2012 for debate in State Parliament. This is the Tenants' Union's comment on the Bill.

The Tenants' Union strongly supports the Boarding Houses Bill (the Bill). The Bill is a much-needed and long-overdue measure of law reform for the State's boarding house sector and the people who live in it.

In particular, the TU strongly supports the Bill's provisions relating to occupancy principles and occupancy agreements for boarding house proprietors and residents. These provisions give proprietors an appropriate degree of flexibility in drafting agreements that suit the services they provide, and give residents some basic rights and access to justice.

We also strongly support the Bill's establishment of a new Boarding Houses Register. This will give prospective residents and other members of the public access to relevant information about boarding houses; help ensure that councils identify and inspect boarding houses and enforce building and fire safety requirements; and provide a point for information exchange between government and the boarding house sector.

The Bill makes a number of improvements on the Government's earlier draft Bill, circulated for consultation in June this year. In particular:

• the loophole about premises that are subject to a tenancy agreement is closed;
• the names of boarding house proprietors will be included on the Register;
• proprietors will be required to provide a written occupancy agreement at the commencement of an occupancy;
• standard forms of occupancy agreements for different classes of agreements, persons or premises may be prescribed by regulation;
• the occupancy principles are effective – it is a term of every occupancy agreement that the occupancy principles apply;
• a new occupancy principle prohibits penalty clauses for breach of house rules;
• a new occupancy principle allows utility charges to be levied on a reasonable basis only;
• a new occupancy principle limits bonds to two weeks' occupation fee; and
• a wider range of remedies is available in the Tribunal, including compensation.

The TU commends the Bill to all Members of Parliament. Beyond the present Bill, we encourage the Government to continue reform of the boarding house sector and marginal renting more generally, particularly by:

• working with stakeholders to develop standard forms of occupancy agreements, to be prescribed by regulation;
• legislating to provide that all persons who rent their housing and who are not otherwise covered by residential tenancies legislation are covered by the occupancy principles and occupancy agreements;
• boosting the Boarding Houses Financial Assistance Program, in anticipation of increased applications for fire safety grants, and to allow grants for other purposes;
• expanding the Boarding House Outreach Program, to connect boarding house residents to support services in locations throughout the State; and
• adopting as government policy the orderly winding up of the assisted boarding house sector, and ensuring that residents have access to appropriate housing and funded support services, provided on a not-for-proft basis.

Bankstown fire flat: a 'mini-boarding house'?

Like many people, we've been disturbed and saddened by the reports of the recent fire at the Euro Terrace apartment block in Bankstown, where a young woman died after she and a friend leapt from a fifth floor flat to escape the flames.

Our thoughts go to the family and friends of the young woman who died, and the other young woman who survived with serious injuries. We feel too for all those residents made temporarily homeless while awaiting repairs.

According to early reports, there were defects in the way the whole block was built: in particular, it had allegedly had an unauthorised roofed atrium added, which trapped heat and smoke in building.

Lately it has been reported that there were problems within the flat itself: in particular, that part of the dining room had been walled off to create an additional (fourth) bedroom, and locks had been installed on the bedroom doors. The implication is that the flat was being operated as a 'mini-boarding house'.

We make no comment here as to the liability of the builders or certifiers of the block, or of the owner or managing agents of the flat. We will also not go here into the question of the adequacy of current laws about building certification or fire safety.

What we will we consider here is how the NSW State Government's proposed boarding house law reform might operate in relation to a flat operating as a 'mini-boarding house', on the facts as reported by the Herald. We stress: this is conjecture – the Government's draft Boarding Houses Bill is not law, and if and when it becomes law, there may be differences between its terms and those of the current draft Bill.

First there is the question of whether a flat, operating as a 'mini-boarding house', would be covered by the legislation. The physical form of the premises isn't the issue here: the draft Bill provides that even a 'vehicle, vessel or aircraft' could be boarding premises, so a flat certainly could be. The key question is whether the premises provides beds for five or more persons (not counting the proprietor, if they reside there too). If it does (and a four-bedroom flat could do, because sharing a room in these situations is common), the flat would be covered as a tier 1 registrable boarding house. But if it's for four persons or fewer: no, it would not be covered. (And we leave aside the question of tier 2 boarding houses; these are residential centres for vulnerable persons, and the sort of flats we're discussing are not these.)

Before we leave the question of coverage: under the current terms of the draft Bill, the flat would not be covered – even if five or more persons lived there – if the flat is subject to a residential tenancy agreement (ie between the owner and one of the residents, or between the owner and an absent head-tenant who rents out the rooms). We've previously called this a fatal loophole in the draft Bill, and we understand that the Government sees the problem and will fix it in the final version of the Bill.

Secondly, there is the issue of registration. If a flat is a tier 1 boarding house, the draft Bill says the proprietor (either the owner or the head-tenant, whoever is letting the rooms) must register the flat on the Boarding Houses Register (which would be established by the legislation).

Registration has nothing to do whether the premises are approved for use as a boarding house by the local council – that's a separate process. For the purposes of the Boarding Houses Bill, if the premises  fit the definition of a registrable boarding house under the Bill, they've got to be registered (whether approved for use as a boarding house or not); if they're not registered, the proprietor is guilty of an offence.

If the flat is registered as a boarding house, the draft Bill states that the local council must inspect it within 12 months. The purpose of the inspection is to determine whether the flat complies with requirements relating to building and fire safety, and with standards for shared accommodation. (More on this in a moment.)

Of course, if the proprietor knows that the flat is not approved by the council for use as a boarding house, or that it does not comply with building and fire safety requirements, they'll probably not register. If that's the case, the Boarding Houses Register might still help the local council catch up with them. Say a neighbour is suspicious about the fact that what looks form the outside to be a three-bedroom flat is home to several adults. The neighbour would be able to search the Register (it will be online) for the premises and, finding no match, then report their suspicions to the local council. They might also report their suspicions to NSW Fair Trading, as the keeper of the Register, which might then prosecute the proprietor's breach of the registration requirement.

Thirdly, there is the issue of building and fire safety requirements and standards. This is what the council will consider when it inspects or investigates the premises. For the council, there's also the question of whether the use of the premises as a boarding house is approved and what to do about it in the very likely event that it is not approved.

In considering these questions, the council will be looking at what the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulation, its own Development Control Plans, and the Building Code of Australia say about boarding houses. What these things say generally proceeds from the BCA's classification of boarding houses into two classes: Class 1b buildings and Class 3 buildings.

Class 1b boarding houses are typical small-medium sized boarding houses (not more than 300 square meters in area, and accommodating not more than 12 persons), but because they are defined as being 'not located about or below another dwelling or another Class of building', a flat in a strata scheme won't fit the definition.

Class 3 applies to boarding houses other than Class 1b boarding houses... but the assumption in the BCA and elsewhere is that these will be large boarding houses (not 'mini' ones, like a single flat), capable of complying with relatively onerous requirements in relation to shared facilities, such as kitchens and bathrooms, and fire safety (for example, sprinkler systems). It's difficult to see how a typical flat could comply with the requirements of a Class 3 building, but that's for the council to determine.

There's also the issue of the number of persons residing in the flat – and the question of overcrowding. This is addressed in the standards for 'places of shared accommodation' in Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government (General) Regulation, which provides (at clause 1) that councils can determine a maximum number of boarders or lodgers for each bedroom or dormitory, and for the whole of the premises, for premises that are 'places of shared accommodation'. Under the draft Boarding Houses Bill, these standards would apply to all registrable boarding houses. The council might consider any limits on numbers of occupants it may have provided for in its own development approval for the strata scheme.

A further note on the standards for places of shared accommodation under the Reg – it is hard to see a flat complying with some these: for example, the requirement at clause 2(2) that 'a schedule showing the numeral designating each bedroom and dormitory and the number of persons permitted to be accommodated in each must be conspicuously displayed on the premises'.

So, there are many ways in which a flat operating as a 'mini-boarding house' might contravene the requirements and standards applied by councils.

As for what the council might do – depending on the circumstances, it can order that:

• the proprietor stop using the flat for a purpose that has not been approved; 
• the proprietor reverse any unlawful work done to the premises;
• the proprietor stop carrying on an activity that constitutes a life-threatening hazard or threat to public health;
• the proprietor do things to ensure adequate fire safety;
• everyone leave the premises, because the proprietor has failed to comply with a public health or fire safety order; and
• that the proprietor take action to bring the premises into compliance with the standards for places of shared accommodation.

The power to make these orders already exists (the first five are from section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; the last is from section 124 of the Local Government Act 1993) – but it seems to us that the reforms in the Boarding Houses Bill would help in the identification of premises that councils should be looking at, including 'mini-boarding houses' operating from blocks of flats, and usefully direct councils get in and make orders where necessary.

When it comes to learning from and responding to the terrible event at the Euro Terrace, it may be that changes to the law about building design and certification will be the key to safer flats and buildings, but the changes to the law already pending in the Boarding Houses Bill can also be seen as contributing to the same end.

Bye and thanks, Clover Moore

Tomorrow Clover Moore leaves the NSW Parliament, where she's represented tenants, marginal renters and other residents of inner-city Sydney as their independent Member for almost 25 years.

She's leaving reluctantly, because she's the newly re-elected Lord Mayor of Sydney and, under new laws – 'appalling, anti-democratic laws', in Clover's words – a person cannot hold both a seat in Parliament and a seat in local government.

We at the Brown Couch are sad to see her leave, too, because Clover's always been a voice in the Parliament for tenants and other renters. We've heard Clover recall an experience from early in her career in public service: walking along a Kings Cross street one night in the late 1980s, coming upon the distressing scene of a group of people being evicted – quite lawfully – by a boarding house landlord, and thinking that our laws and housing options need to be a lot better.

Over the years since then, Clover has sought to improve the State's renting laws through her own Private Members Bills – including, most recently, her Bill for occupancy agreements for marginal renters – and through thoughtful amendments and contributions to debates in relation to Government tenancy legislation. She also supported the refunding of the TU and the Tenants Advice and Advocacy Services by the minority Coalition Government in 1994, and her own mayoral salary trust funded Redfern Legal Centre's Boarders and Lodgers Legal Information Kit.

Landlords and boarding house operators have done well from her, too: the land tax exemption for inner-city boarding houses and low-cost rental premises is one of Clover's intiatives, which has helped keep these forms of housing viable for their owners and available for their low-income residents.

We know Clover will continue to work for tenants and other renters at the City of Sydney, where her abiding interest in housing has become an abiding interest of the Council too. But as she leaves Parliament we say: bye and thanks for all the work you've done for tenants and other renters throughout the State.

Much Debate about Occupancy Agreements

As we mentioned last week, independent MP Clover Moore's Residential Tenancies Amendment (Occupancy Agreements) Bill was the subject of debate in Parliament on Thursday. We took along a little piece of the brown couch and watched our parliamentary process unfold.

Predictably, and a little disappointingly it seems the readership of the Brown Couch does not include many parliamentarians and the opportunity to have the best of both bills was lost, at least for now. However, there were some encouraging signs that there is still room for the Government's own Boarding Houses Bill to grow in to an effective piece of legislation.

Much of the Government's response to the Bill debate centred around two points. Firstly, and unsurprisingly, that the Government's own Bill was their preferred option.

Member for Port Stephens, Mr Craig Baumann mentioned,

"I note that, unlike the very responsible legislation that the O'Farrell-Stoner Government is developing to make New South Wales number one again, this bill has not been subject to public consultation."

He later went on to say,

"The Government's reforms have been tested through a comprehensive consultation process involving key stakeholders. The Government has ensured that the views of both boarding house residents and operators were considered in its reform proposals."

If we'd been given the floor, we might have pointed out that although there has been targetted consultation on the Government's Bill, any views of boarding house residents that have been considered were entirely through the work of various community groups, including the Tenants' Union, to gather those views.

All but one of the government's speakers took the opportunity to point out the 16 years Labor had whilst in government to introduce some reform to marginal renters. Not an unfair point, but not one that had much bearing on the merits of the Bill before the house.

More relevant were the various case studies that Labor members, and Clover Moore read to the house of people who will remain uncovered by any accessible dispute resolution if the Boarding Houses Bill proceeds without amendment. A choice study, as entered into Hansard,

"G and H are Chinese students attending university in regional New South Wales and sharing a room rented from a private landlord. The landlord charges each of them $140 a week for the room plus $84 for internet access and $70 for electricity and a bond. When the landlord informed them that the rent would increase the following week by $45 these Chinese students objected to the increase and queried the amounts they are being charged for internet access and electricity. The landlord told them, "This is the law in Australia. You better get used to it", and he gave them four days notice of termination.

Minister for Disability and Aging. Andrew Constance gave some positive indications that the Boarding House Bill was not yet set in stone. He told the House:

"I will go away and examine it more closely, beyond this parliamentary debate, to see whether it contains elements that could be incorporated in those consultations as they relate to the boarding house reform that we have embarked upon."

"The private member's bill introduced by the member for Sydney extends beyond boarding houses, and I am happy to look at those provisions and engage further with the member."

A particularly impressive few lines, to which we give a resounding "hear hear!":

"I know there are people in the sector who are deadset against this process. I say to them that government—regardless of whether it is Labor, Liberal, Independent or The Greens—must ensure that protections are in place for people in vulnerable situations. I do not think the proposals in this bill are particularly onerous."

"I reiterate that I do not see this being a reason for boarding houses to close."

Much of the discussion was in fact a precursor to the debate on the Boarding Houses Bill. Whilst disappointing that this Bill was opposed, it highlights the value of bills such as Clover's, which while they may not have strong hopes of becoming statute, can stimulate debate and hopefully help to create better law in Government hands.

We'll leave the last line to the Member for Sydney, Clover Moore:

"Home is our respite from the world; it is the place we long for when we are travelling, sick, cold or tired. It is a place where we grow and where we can be ourselves. Having a safe and comfortable home is essential to our wellbeing and is the reason we have laws to protect people's right to live in their home, particularly if they do not own their residence."

In memoriam, we commend the bill to the House.