24 July 2024

What is a minimum rental standard? Consultation aims to find out

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
35

The government wants clearer expectations for landlords and tenants about property requirements. Photo: Ian Bushnell.

Proposed changes to tenancy laws aim to set a new “baseline” level for acceptable rental properties, and the ACT Government wants to hear from tenants, landlords and the general community.

The changes are part of a national push for minimum standards and will build on the energy efficiency standard that now mandates ceiling insulation in rental properties, to be phased in by 30 November 2026.

From minimum requirements for locks and ventilation to energy-efficiency ratings for appliances and window coverings, the government says the proposed changes aim to establish a clear baseline for habitable living conditions.

Reforms to occupancy laws are also on the table, including the termination of occupancy agreements, occupancy fee increases such as those for residents in boarding houses, and protections for caravan park residents.

READ ALSO Builder’s crash leaves couple high and dry in the Sierra townhouse development

Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury said the goal was to set clearer expectations for landlords and tenants that would apply to all rented residential properties.

For example, ACT legislation didn’t make clear that all rented properties should have a kitchen, he said.

“Most rental properties across the ACT would have many of these things, but at the moment, if they don’t, there is a limited ability for tenants to seek recourse from their landlords,” he said.

“Having minimum standards in legislation gives them the power to go to the real estate agent, go to the Tribunal and say, ‘Hang on a minute, this should be here as part of a normal rental property’.”

The government hopes to establish the essential features every rental property should have to ensure it is safe, healthy and comfortable.

It also wants the feedback to help it determine landlords’ responsibilities in installing energy-efficient appliances and water-saving fixtures, including heating and cooling systems, to reduce costs and environmental impacts.

Mr Rattenbury said minimum standards already existed in other jurisdictions, except Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

Other changes being considered include requirements to transition away from gas appliances when they reach their end of life and imposing safety obligations on tenants.

READ ALSO Construction starts on state-of-art office tower in CBD

In August 2023, National Cabinet agreed to the Better Deal for Renters reform package, which included a commitment by each state and territory to phase in minimum quality standards for rental properties.

The government says introducing minimum standards for rental properties will help ensure rental properties meet prevailing community standards and provide tenants with basic levels of safety, security, amenity and hygiene.

However, it can expect some pushback from landlords and the property industry about the cost of upgrading properties.

To make a submission, take the survey and read the discussion paper, visit YourSay

Join the conversation

35
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Who provides the majority of properties for people to rent? It is property investors, yet you seem hell-bent on deterring property investors with continuous changes in rental laws, which always favour tenants. These changes mean increased costs for landlords which means higher rents for tenants. No one is forced to rent a property if they don’t want to. With all the rental laws that have been introduced, It is not worth the hassle of owning a rental property in the ACT. You have taken away all the control a property investor has over their property. Easier to invest in the stock market. So this means fewer properties available to rent. Well done ACT Government!

devils_advocate10:39 am 01 Aug 24

I wouldn’t worry. It will reduce the supply of available rental properties and landlords will recover their increased costs by raising rents.

The market always wins.

Interesting interview.

Pointing out different policies in play across the country
https://spinetwork.libsyn.com/whats-the-go-with-no-grounds-evictions

Barmaleo Barmaley10:26 am 26 Jul 24

The ACT government rip around $5000 a year on average from each rented house in Canberra through land taxes alone doing nothing in return. How about putting some of this easy money back, if care about the rented properties standards . Otherwise, it is a plain plunder. How dare the ACT Government talk about improving the rented standards or high rent costs and blame property owners for that when a large an constantly growing chunk of rent income go to this government?

Abolish the feudal ACT land tax and property owners would agree to reduce the rent by $90 a week or make a kitchen renovation instead of ~$5000 yearly land tax.

All these feudal taxes, fines, parking fees kill the ACT economy. People afraid to visit Canberra due to high costs of living, more so to live here.

Lol as if they would reduce rent prices by $90 a week. They’d happily take the $90 a week as extra profit – don’t kid yourself.

“. People afraid to visit Canberra due to high costs of living’ Want to provide evidence to support said claim?

devils_advocate11:02 am 01 Aug 24

Self-fulfilling prophecy. If the rental market were more competitive and there were more supply, landlords would not have pricing power and would not be able to raise rents significantly above the cost of providing the service.

As things are, landlords are able to raise prices to the full extent of people’s ability to pay.

Better Planning9:15 am 26 Jul 24

So many empty properties around if the Government makes it too difficult for landlords, they’ll just remain empty – striking the right balance is important.

Incidental Tourist12:27 am 26 Jul 24

Practically all non-compliant properties are old houses on large blocks rented out at the lowest price. This regulation will accelerate their sell off. Mid to high end rental market will not be impacted because such properties exceed basic standards anyway. Unlucky tenants who can’t afford moving to expensive rentals will have to join growing queue for public housing.
ACT Greens long lost interest in environmental issues. They distance themselves from Wallaroo solar farm. Instead they focus on rental market making it less affordable every year but which offers better short term grand standing less than 100 days before election.

Some of these “requirements” go beyond minimum and go into the “nice to have” category

Some definitely do. But there are many that probably don’t either. I don’t think, having seen some of what passes as ‘acceptable’ in Canberra that we are quite at the minimum stage yet.

GrumpyGrandpa10:07 pm 25 Jul 24

We don’t own an investment property, however, this whole thing concerns me.

When a government makes statements about the “landlords’ responsibilities in installing energy-efficient appliances and water-saving fixtures, including heating and cooling systems, to reduce costs and environmental impacts”, it becomes really scary for anyone who is a landlord, or contemplating it.

We live in a house with no northerly windows, we are on piers (not a slab). All of our windows are 3mm single pane glass (and there are a lot of them). Our cutains aren’t heavy rubber-backed with pelmets. Our house has a ducted airconditioning system that is at least 35 years old. We have battery powered smoke alarms, not hard-wired versions, our dishwasher is is an old; not a modern efficient version. We have solar hot water, however it’s 30 years old.

I expect it would cost us, tens of thousands, to bring our house up to the government’s expected standard.

Imagine if we decided to buy an investment property. We would be required to provide better conditions for our tenant, than we had ourselves!

Rattenbury really is beyond belief. Typical Greens clown who hasn’t got a clue. I unfortunately do have 1 rental property in Canberra. I’ve got a great tennant who pays sub market rent as she cannot afford more. But if this moron wants me to upgrade appliances (again) (remembering that in the mid 90s Gas was the clean energy) I’ll have no option but to sell. Maybe you can explain that to her Rattenbury.

Queenie-Lou Hilario4:32 pm 25 Jul 24

Yeah, it’s always the poor landlords who really suffer.

I sold the ones I had in the ACT and bought in NSW as soon as they started on about rent caps and forcing me to allow dogs.

It says upgrade to electricity when gas appliances are at their end of life – no extra cost to you.

You might be eligible for a discount on Land Tax if you rent it below market value.

Yeah I’ll be doing the same Ken.

Is that just your opinion because there’s quite a cost to changeover. One you clearly haven’t discovered.

Yeah. Trying to make a life for themselves without handouts is really just criminal

I’ll preface this by stating that I don’t have any investment properties so I don’t have a dog in this fight… but this seems idiotic.

How many landlords have all of these things, even in their own homes? Having just renovated a large, old house myself, these things were VERY expensive to replace/install.

The next issue is that these are seen by the ATO as capital improvements to a property so they aren’t even tax deductible. How many people with investment properties are going to be able to fork out tens of thousands of dollars to make all these changes without even being able to claim a deduction?

Many landlords will just be forced to sell… but maybe this was the plan in the first place?

I think my money is better invested in topping up my super and investing in the share market.
Who can tell what crazy rental reforms will happen if the same mob gets back into power again after this coming election.
I’m so glad i sold my investment property in Canberra.

If the government thinks landlords won’t increase the costs to cover these proposed upgrades, they have got to be kidding themselves. I don’t think anyone is against fair and balanced tenancy legislation but forcing owners to undertake some of these rectifications will only force them out of the market. I also remain perplexed why its proposed that owners are responsible for tenants comfort and safety? If the smoke alarm beeps, replace it. If theres a draught, go to Bunnings and buy the $12 part to fix it. Speaking from experience, owners want tenants to live comfortably but requirements for locks, latches, window furnishings, gauzes, hot water available in all wet rooms, draught proofing, water saving taps, heating and cooling, safety checks every two years when those owners don’t even have this luxury in their own home is beyond idiocracy.

May as well just supply 4 walls and a roof and say ‘go for it’ if this view is anything to go by.

It isn’t 1924, and it is not unreasonable to expect properties to meet a decent standard – such as being relatively airtight, having suitable heating and cooling, having hot water in an internal wet room (seriously), having a lock on a window. All things that should be seen as absolutely standard, and indeed are on any new build. But oh no, what a blasphemy that some basic standard of decency should be expected for the classes that, for whatever reason, don’t own their own home.

The difference between a landlord’s own property and one they are renting is the one they own has no contract with another party over the top of it. What they choose to do with their own property is their choice. If they want to own property that they rent out for income, then meeting some basic minimum standards is not unreasonable.

Being in a rental property shouldn’t mean someone has to give away what most would consider to be reasonable basic human rights – a property that is secure, a property that is safe, and a property that doesn’t endanger health unnecessarily.

None of those things are “basic human rights”. What a moronic take. If it needs to be provided by somebody else, it’s not a “human right”.

Whatever Ken. We should be aiming as a society to be providing something above 3rd world conditions by standard.

If you want to rent a property out for personal profit, then providing a basic level of comfort should not be seen as unreasonable.

The only moronic take are people suggesting properties needn’t have locks, nor hot water in wet rooms, nor draught proofing. As I said – may as well just be a roof and that’s it. We are better than that as a society, surely.

What an ignorant way of looking at this. Why can’t a tenant draught proof a window or door? Why can’t a tenant buy some dowel and put in the window tracks (although I highly doubt there is not a lock on every window in the ACT) and seriously, if you view a property with the intention to rent it with no heater or A/C, why would you then expect an owner to supply one? When I purchased our home, or rented in the past, these are exactly the things you look for. And before you bang on about the rental crisis, google the stats and media articles as our rental market is dead. Yes there is a contract between a landlord and tenant just like there is a contract between the landlord and the bank – Am I meant to call my lender and demand better heating or floor to ceiling insulation? Should I whinge about my interest rate going up a dozen times in a 12 month period when tenants only cop an increase once a year and its set by CPI! I mean seriously… Tenants rent properties and contribute to the owners repayments yes but for this, they are getting a home and most of these proposals are wants not needs. These changes will force investors (no we aren’t all rich) out of the market or the cost for the upgrades will be passed onto tenants.

Your contract with a bank is to provide finance to purchase an asset, not a contract to provide a home that is fit for purpose. Hardly the same. Pointless comparison

If you want to rent out a property to someone to live in, then meeting reasonable minimum standards of comfort should not be seen as unreasonable. Of course transition periods and strategies should be put in place for new requirements.

Your choices at a home you purchase are your choices. That shouldn’t mean providing something not fit for purpose, especially in a climate with a wide range of temperatures like Canberra is okay.

The arrogance of such a view, and suggesting a property that can be properly secured, has a reasonable amount of effort put in to make it airtight, and has some form of heating/cooling is a ‘want’ is astounding.

Again, the usual commie rhetoric.

If you want something “above third world conditions” go and build it yourself. You are not entitled to other peoples possessions or labour.

Why is there a difference? What the bank lends me to buy what I can or choose to afford whether it be a new home or something older that needs some ‘work’ is exactly the same options/decision a tenant has when choosing their next rental. Pay more on the mortgage for a better standard of housing = pay more rent for a better rental…
The sense of entitlement from those arguing for these proposals is astonishing and until those crying out for these changes take responsibility for their own comfortability and safety, there will never be a middle ground.
This is not a society problem, its a problem caused by a select few who have no ambition to better their livelihoods or work hard to contribute to said society.

“You are not entitled to other peoples possessions or labour”

Substantially correct.

That is why rent is paid for them.

Do you believe housing is a rare product for which there should not be any regulation? There are already standards for housing, and the current ACT action is responsive to National Cabinet agreement. The only debate is their extent.

There is a difference between regulation, which is what was in place previously, and de-facto commandeering peoples assets to turn into government housing, which is what is now happening.

The day the ACT government changed the residential tenancy Act to force landlords to allow pets, allow tenants to modify the property, and allow tenants to ignore the terms of a contract, it stopped being simple regulation.

Every time Rattenbury and his clown party interfere with residential tenancy law, it costs renters more.

Very unfortunate for the renters who aren’t greens voters.

The tenant should simply be given a Wishlist that they tick and the landlord should just pay for it all , even maybe it should be rent free

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.