Queensland is in a housing crisis – families all across our state are being pushed out of their rental properties, struggling to find housing and being forced to live in caravans or cars. Our weak rental laws are only turbocharging this crisis.
The Queensland Government are currently looking for feedback on their 'Stage Two' Rental Reforms.
Reforms being looked at for Stage 2 are:
- Modifications for safety, security and accessibility
- Personal modifications, like hooks for pictures or veggie gardens
- Rules around privacy, including frequency of inspections, notification time frames, storage of data, and questions that can be asked of prospective tenants
- Rules around the refunding of bond
- Rules around other charges, like water, the manner by which rent is paid, and reletting costs
Consultation is open until Monday 29 May 2023. You can find more details, and access to a survey, here.
The options do not go far enough, and there is no consideration of a rent freeze, or a real end to no ground evictions. I've done my best here to explain the options, and what my suggestions are.
Installing modifications (safety and accessibility)
This is about making it easier for tenants to make modifications to a home for safety, security and accessibility - things like grab rails, baby gates, furniture anchors and security cameras. For people with disability, or ageing people, families with little kids, or people escaping DV, these kids of modifications are crucial.
Current rules: Tenants have to ask for permission from a landlord to make this kind of modifications. While "consent cannot be unreasonably withheld" by landlords, for most tenants, the power imbalance between tenants and landlords means that it's tough for tenants to enforce their own rights, for fear of not having their lease renewed.
Options being explored:
1) Status Quo + Education: No change and develop education materials for renters and landlords. The status quo is obviously unacceptable.
2) Guide Discretion: Renters would continue to require rental property owner permission to make changes, but tighten up the grounds on which landlords could object, and renters would have to provide evidence of their need for safety, security or accessibility.
I think this option still puts too much power in the hands of landlords and real estate agents, and would be a breach of privacy asking tenants to provide evidence, which would require disclosure of medical issues or cases of domestic violence.
3) Limit Discretion: Renter wouldn't have to get the landlord's permission to make safety or accessibility modifications, but they would have to notify the landlord. The landlord would then have to seek an order from a Tribunal if they want to prevent the change being made - they'd have 14 days to tell a tenant they're objecting to the modification, and another 28 days from there to apply to the tribunal.
I think this option, not having to ask for permission, is reasonable, but the time frame should be be narrowed so that landlords have 7 days to apply to the tribunal, rather than 42 days.
Making minor personalisation changes
This is about letting renters make minor personalisation changes to rental properties, things like hooks for hanging pictures, new phone lines or internet connections, planting a veggie patch, or putting shatter-resistant film to window or other minor changes that "don’t penetrate a surface or permanently modify a surface, fixture or structure of the property".
Current rules: Tenants have to ask for permission from a landlord to make personal modifications. While "consent cannot be unreasonably withheld" by landlords, for most tenants, the power imbalance between tenants and landlords means that it's tough for tenatns to enforce their own rights, for fear of not having their lease renewed.
More and more people are renting, and long term. We deserve to be able to make our homes truly our own. I think the suggested list of modifications, including changes that "don’t penetrate a surface or permanently modify a surface, fixture or structure' is too narrow - renters should be able to put up shelves, or paint walls as well.
Options being explored:
1) Status Quo + Education: No change and develop education materials for renters and landlords. Again, the status quo is obviously unacceptable.
2) Guide Discretion: Renters would continue to require rental property owner permission to make changes, but tighten up the grounds on which landlords could object. If a renter moves out, they would have to return the property to the original condition, unless the landlord owner agrees to retain the modifications, in which case the tenant would be compensated for costs.
I think this option still puts too much power in the hands of landlords and real estate agents. Renters should have clearer rights to make their home truly their own.
3) Limit Discretion: Renter wouldn't have to get the landlord's permission to make personal modifications, but they would have to notify the landlord. The landlord would then have to seek an order from a Tribunal if they want to prevent the change being made - they'd have 14 days to tell a tenant they're objecting to the modification, and another 28 days from there to apply to the tribunal. If a renter moves out, they would have to return the property to the original condition, unless the landlord owner agrees to retain the modifications, in which case the tenant would be compensated for costs.
I think this option is mostly reasonable, but the time frame should be be narrowed so that landlords have 7 days to apply to the tribunal, rather than 42 days. The range of modifications should also be expanded to include painting, and installing shelving.
Balancing privacy and access
This is about the right of access to rental homes by landlords and real estate agents, taking photos during inspections and the kinds of questions real estate agents can ask on rental applications.
Current rules: At the moment, tenants only need to be given 7 days notice for a regular insepction, every 3 months, or 24 hours for inspections related to the sale of a property. Real estate agents can take photos, but are meant to ask permission to use any photos that shows the renter’s belongings in public advertising (for property sales or new rentals). There are no rules in Queensland requiring real estate agents to ensure secure storage of personal information, and no rules around what questions can be asked of prospective tenants.
I think that 7 days is too short a time frame. In terms of invasive questions, we've heard from people being discriminated against on the basis of their nationality, discrimination against single mothers, and people on the DSP or Newstart. In 2021 we suggested that real estate agents should not be able to ask about: whether a tenant has been involved in legal action with previous landlords; bond history; a copy of a passport; bank records that show transactions; questions about residency status or nationality. I think real estate agents should also be banned from asking for information from someone's employer, or questions to any referee about cleanliness.
I also think that real estate agents and landlords should be required to disclose to prospective tenants: if a landlord has engaged an agent to sell a property; if a property is locked into an "embedded electricity network", locking in power prices; whether the landlord has received a notice to remedy breach for mould or damp in a home in the last 3 years; if a property has been used for trafficking or drugs; the presence of asbestos; building defects; approvals for new developments; building works or body corporate disputes; if a home has flooded at any time.
Options being explored:
1) Status Quo + Education: No change and develop education materials for renters and landlords. The status quo is obviously unacceptable.
2) Balancing access and privacy: Limiting general inspections to once every three months, with 7 days written notice. Renters would have to allow at least one physical inspection per year, but other inspections could happen via a live online video, photos or recorded videos. Landlords would only have to give 48 hours notice for inspections related to the sale of a property (valuation, pest inspection, etc). Real estate agents would have higher standards for the storage and use of photographs, and other personal information of tenants.
7 days notice, and inspection every 3 months, is the status quo. From the feedback I've gotten over the last few years, I think 7 days is still too short for notice, and 48 hours for entry related to sale is also too short. I also think that while the video/photo option is good, every 3 months is onerous.
This option also doesn't limit the kinds of questions real estate agents can ask, and real estate agents could still ask for copies of things like passports.
3) Limit intrusion: Limit general inspections to once every 6 months, with at least 10 business days written notice. Renters would have to allow at least one physical inspection per year, but other inspections could happen via a live online video, photos or recorded videos. Landlords would only have to give 48 hours notice for inspections related to the sale of a property (valuation, pest inspection, etc).
Renters could object to photos that might identify them, for DV reasons, or photos of valuable or senitive items, and can review any photos that might be published to advertise a property.
Real estate agents would be banned from asking questions about disputes or legal action with previous landlords; bond history; financial statements that show transactions, or information about protected attributes under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (eg nationality). (This proposal is very similar to what I suggested in 2021).
Standards for storage of data would be tightened, renters would have more choice about how they make applications (ie, not being forced to use a particular online platform), and renters could verify their identify by letting real estate agents view hard copies of their passport or other ID, rather than having to supply copies.
There are some good suggestions here! Based on feedback I've gotten over the last few years, I'd suggest that a minimum of 14 days notice should be given for inspections, and similarly for entry related to the sale of a property.
Real estate agents should also be banned from asking questions of someone's employer, or questions to any referee about cleanliness.
I think landlord and real estate agents should also be required to disclose important information to tenants, such as if a house has flooded, has suffered from mould; or has approval for a new development over it.
Improving the rental bond process
This is about the grounds on which bond can be withheld from a tenant when they leave a property.
Current rules: For most tenancies, bond can be no more than four times the weekly rent. However, if weekly rent is more than $700, there is no limit on the maximum bond amount that can be charged - and with the rapid increase in rents, more and more people are paying over $700 per week. At the end of a lease, the tenant, real estate agent or landlord can all apply to get the bond, and the RTA will process the bond for whoever asks first, but only with the agreement of all parties. Landlords and real estate agents don't have to provide evidence for witholding bond (such as cleaning or repair quotes or proof of unpaid rent).
I've heard so many stories about renters fighting to get their bond back when they've left a property, with vexatious claims by real estate agents that they don't need to back up with evidence. Most tenants don't have the time, or financial means, to take real estate agents or landlords to QCAT to dispute claims, as they often can't take time off work. I think that the RTA should work on the assumption that a tenant will have their full bond returned, and landlords and real estate agents should have a narrow time frame - such as 48 hours - to provide substantive evidence in order to keep a tenants bond. I think we should also introduce a system whereby tenants can easily transfer bond between tenancies, and a hard caps of bond amounts for all tenancies.
Options being explored:
1) Status Quo + Education: No change and develop education materials for renters and landlords. The status quo is obviously unacceptable.
2) Require bond claims to be substantiated: Require landlords and real estate agents to "substantiate" reasons for keeping part or all of a tenant's bond. The burden of proof here is very vague. This option also retains the current system, whereby whoever puts in their bond claim first, gets processed first.
3) Require bond claims and renter’s liability to be proven: Require landlords and real estate agents to "prove the renter had failed to meet their tenancy obligations". The burden of proof here looks a little more solid, but this option also retains the current system, whereby whoever puts in their bond claim first, gets processed first.
Fairer fees and charges
This is about rules around charges like water, the manner by which rent is paid, and reletting costs.
Current rules: Currently, real estate agents can ask tenants to pay rent via third party platforms (which often charge an additional service charge) but have to offer at least two ways to pay rent that are included in the Act (cash, cheque, direct deposit, EFTPOS, credit card, payroll deductions or another method agreed by the parties). Some real estate agents list a specific platform in the rent agreement.
For tenants who have to pay for water (in properties that are considered water efficiency), they have to pay water bills within 1 month of receiving them from the rental property owner, but there is no time limit for when an owner needs to pass these bills to the renter.
Renters who leave a property before the end of a lease can also be liable for expensive "reletting costs".
I think that people should have to pay no more than the required rent, and should be offered a cash and electronic options that incurs no additional charges. There should be a higher burden of proof to demonstrate that properties are genuinely water efficient, with documented proof that all taps are water efficient, there are water tanks that are in good order, and renters should be able to access generous subsidies for water efficient appliances. Tenants should also bear no burden for reletting costs - this would help tenants leave unsuitable properties quickly and easily, and would ensure that real estate agents move quickly to advertise and relet an empty property, rather than relying on reletting fees to cover costs. This could also put downward pressure on rents, as landlords and real estate agents would be incentivied to make a property affordable to ensure it is occupied as soon as possible.
Options being explored:
1) Status Quo + Education: No change and develop education materials for renters and landlords. The status quo is obviously unacceptable.
2) Increase transparency: Change rules to require that:
- Renters are offered a fee-free rent payment method to pay rent
- Utility bills the renter has to pay, such as water, are forwarded within a month
- Reletting costs are capped
3) Limit fees and charges: Change rules to require that:
- Renters are offered a fee-free rent payment method to pay rent
- Renters may only be required to pay for excessive consumption charges above what would be considered reasonable, and bills are forwarded within a month
- Reletting costs are capped, and are zero for tenants who are leaving a property to access affordable rental accommodation or to move into social housing; or if the renter will experience excessive hardship if they are required to pay the reletting costs
Options 2 and 3 both look reasonable, but no tenants should be charged reletting fees, regardless of the circumstances. This would help tenants leave unsuitable properties quickly and easily, and would ensure that real estate agents move quickly to advertise and relet an empty property, rather than relying on reletting fees to cover costs. This could also put downward pressure on rents, as landlords and real estate agents would be incentivied to make a property affordable to ensure it is occupied as soon as possible.
How to give your feedback?
The government are seeking response to a survey, and written responses, by Monday 29 May 2023.
The consultation process is very clunky - the survey is very long, the options aren't spelled out in the survey itself, meaning you have to read the fairly lengthy options paper to understand what changes are being offered. If you hit 'unsure' on reform options, you're not able to make written comment, meaning the data will be skewed towards the offered options. There is no open text box at the end of the survey (as is good practice in community consultation), so there is not clear way to provide additional feedback in the survey. The website does not make clear that written submissions can be emailed, instead directing people to register on the platform.
You can see the government's full options paper here, access their surveys here or make a written submission here.
You can see the reponses that I included in the survey here.
You can read my written submission here.
What's missing?
There are some major gaps in terms of what the government is considering, including:
- No plan to limit the amount by which rents can increase by
- No plans to genuinely end no ground evictions (currently the end of a lease alone is grounds for telling a tenant to leave)
- No plans to require real estate agents to tell prospective tenants if a property has flooded, or has been recently affected by mould, or if there have been breach notices against a real estate agent or landlord
Underlying all of this is the massive power imbalance between tenants, landlords and real estate agents. Without a genuine end to no-grounds evictions, and a real cap on the amount rents can go up by, tenants are still going to be at the whim of their landlord and real estate agent. We've heard so many stories about people who asked for basic repairs, and were then told their lease would not be renewed. People who wanted to make basic modifications to their property, and were instead slapped with huge rent increases. While this imbalance exists, renters are still at a huge disadvantage in enforcing their rights.
Background
In May 2021, I introduced the Greens’ bill for rental reforms in Queensland that included:
- Cap rent increases
- Ban “rent bidding” for good
- End “no grounds evictions” by landlords
- Set minimum standards for rental properties
- Make it easier for renters to have pets
- Allow tenants to make minor modifications
In June 2021 the Queensland Labor Government came back with their own rental reforms that:
- Makes it easier for renters who are experiencing domestic violence to leave tenancies;
- Establishes minimum housing standards, like a property must have a connected toilet, be weatherproof and structurally sound
- Makes it a little easier to get a pet approved for a property (but still not easy), and the landlord can make you keep your pet outside without having to justify why
But they backed away from two key reforms, ending "no grounds" evictions and allowing minor safety modifications.
Over a thousand renters wrote to their local MP and the Housing urging them to use this opportunity to give renters real protections. Renters came forward and shared heart-breaking story after heart-breaking story of how difficult it is just to get safe and secure rental housing in Queensland.
Labor was presented with a choice: make changes to their bill before bringing it back to parliament and give Queensland renters real protections, or keep the real estate lobby and wealthy property investors happy.
In the end, they chose the side of the real estate lobby and pushed their bill through parliament unamended.
In 2022, I introduced a Bill to freeze rent increases for two years, followed by a long-term cap in rent increases of 2% every two years.
Over 300 people wrote to the committee inquiry, supporting rent caps in some form.
Instead, the government moved weak amendments that limit rent increases to once every 12 months - with no limit on the amount rents can increase by. For the vast majority of renters, who are on 12 month leases, these amendments means absolutely nothing.
And in fact, the amendments create an incentive for landlords to kick tenants out at the end of a 6-month lease, because the limit applies only if the same tenants are in a property.
But because these amendments were debated and passed, my Rent Freeze Bill was tossed out of parliment, and won't be debated.
Meanwhile, the rental crisis only gets worse.