Abigail called out the major shortcomings in the Labor Government's rental reform bill in relation to making it easier for renters to keep pets. Under Labor's bill which has now passed parliament, the power to refuse a pet still remains in the hands of landlords despite efforts from the Greens to improve these provisions. 

Abigail spoke in support of several amendments put forth by the Animal Justice Party, which if passed would have made significant improvements to the bill's sections on pets in rentals. Unfortunately, most amendments only received support from the Greens, so did not pass. 

Abigail said (20:09): 

The Greens support the amendments put forward by the Animal Justice Party for many of the reasons that we mentioned in our contribution to the second reading debate in this place and that my colleague the member for Newtown put forward in the other place. I put on record that the form of the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Animals in Residential Premises) Bill 2024 that the Hon. Emma Hurst put forward in this place, which was agreed to, was the best practice model that we hoped we would get when Labor members finally sought to implement their election commitment. That approach is backed by Domestic Violence NSW, the Cat Protection Society of NSW, the Tenants' Union of NSW, the Animal Welfare League, Sydney Dogs and Cats Home, Companion Animal Network Australia, Lucy's Project and so many other organisations.

What excited us about the approach proposed in the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Animals in Residential Premises) Bill 2024 was the attitude change. That is what we have seen in Victoria: an attitude change where a renter having companion animals and pets in their house becomes the default. There will be circumstances where it is not possible, but those circumstances should be the same as for the owner of the property. The Greens' position is that the ideal situation would be a renter living in a place that they can call their home and treat as their home, because they are paying for that privilege. They are not there because of some sort of benevolent gesture of the landlord; they are there because they are paying for it. If they pay for it, they should be able to call that place their home.

I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but it is just not the same as being in a position where landlords know there is a default expectation that their tenants will be able to keep animals, just like anyone who owns their home can, unless there is some reason that the landlord needs to go to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to say why not. It is really disappointing that we have missed the opportunity to take advantage of a scheme that would have led to more landlords expecting that would be the case. There are a lot of points along the scale from The Greens' ideal position of people being able to treat a home as entirely their own to the other end of the scale, where landlords can do whatever they like. There are a lot of points in between where legislation could be drafted.

The legislation that had previously been put forward by the Animal Justice Party in this place was further towards that tenants' rights approach. The Government's approach incrementally pushes us forward but still very much backs in the attitude that a landlord is the one who is really in control. As The Greens said during the second reading debate, the practical impact is that people who are fleeing domestic and family violence will not be able to assume that they can get into a property where they can keep their pet. That is a massive problem. The Greens support the amendments and thank the member for moving them.

On a further amendment, Abigail said (20:41): 

On behalf of The Greens, I indicate that we support the amendments. Again, I thank the Hon. Emma Hurst for moving them. It is quite extraordinary and a little heartbreaking to hear that there is no support for the amendments, particularly amendment No. 1. The situation set out by the member was very clear. A person who is renting may have a friend or family member who needs to flee a horrendous situation and would like to come to stay, but they have a pet. There should be an exemption for those circumstances. The Minister suggested that the renter could just have a conversation with their landlord. I am fortunate to no longer be a renter, but the last time I rented, my landlord owned several properties and I could never contact him directly; it was always through the agency.

I will not go on a tangent with the bizarre stories I could tell—I found workmen in my property because the landlord was storing things in my attic for his other properties. Many random things happened. The point is that if I needed to ask the landlord a question or raise a complaint, I had to go through the agent. The agent would then have a process to contact the landlord and perhaps get back to me in 14 or 21 days. That was a landlord who only had a handful of properties. A huge number of rental properties in New South Wales are owned by large corporate players with their own bureaucratic administrative procedures. It is not possible to just call someone.

There is a fiction about the stereotypical landlord as a friendly old lady sitting by the phone waiting for a tenant to call for permission to help their friend who needs to sleep on the couch for a few days with their cat. That is not based on the real world. In the real world, refusing to accept this very basic exception that could potentially save lives is incredibly disappointing. I know that some members of the Labor Party wanted this legislation to go much further. It is upsetting that we could not agree on provisions for pets in rentals that would make a material difference to people fleeing domestic violence. I hope members who are in favour of that logical reform take note of this debate and push within their party to make that change. It is increasingly upsetting to listen to this debate and for these very reasonable amendments to not be agreed to.

On a further amendment, Abigail said (20:51): 

The Greens support this amendment. This is quite extraordinary. If anyone was paying attention to the Legislative Assembly inquiry on The Greens no-grounds eviction bill, they would have seen the Liberal members pushing for more data relating to tenancies. Effectively we have over two million people in rentals in New South Wales. Why would we not want more data? I note that members have spoken about this being an onerous obligation. We know how easy it is now to submit a whole bunch of things electronically. It is not 20 or 30 years ago. The Government could streamline this process and make it easy for landlords to provide data. It is really vital. If we are serious about homelessness and the housing crisis, then we want all the data that we can possibly gather.

We need data to work out if the changes we are making to correct the housing market are actually working. By not supporting this amendment, the Government is making it clear that they know this part of the bill is doing nothing to improve the rights of renters when it comes to pets. It would not be hard to implement this requirement. Everybody wants more data, including the Rental Commissioner, NSW Fair Trading, tenants and housing advocates. I call on the Government to start thinking smarter and more holistically when it comes to dealing with the housing crisis. Anyone who knows anything about developing good policy knows that we cannot do it without good data. The Greens support this excellent amendment.

On a further amendment, Abigail said (21:01): 

The Greens supports these incredibly reasonable amendments. I do not remember the exact words the Hon. Emma Hurst used, but they were along the lines of "Who could possibly reject such reasonable amendments?" Unfortunately, it seems that is where we are at. In relation to the cleaning of carpets and fumigation, I do not know how the provision of the bill that these amendments seek to amend made it into the bill in the first place. I have not used the term "brain fart" in this place for quite a while, but it seems that somebody had a brain fart when they put such an incredibly landlord‑friendly provision into the bill. It flips the way that other elements of this Act work.

Usually, legislation addresses the actual damage caused or the actual actions that have been taken or not taken by a tenant, whereas the provision in the bill asks for speculation about possible damage that might occur. It is an incredibly anti‑tenant provision. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when it was being put in the bill to understand what it was a compromise in relation to, because it is quite extraordinary. Of course, people should not have to fumigate the property or get the carpet cleaned if, for example, they kept their dog outside in a large backyard. There are so many circumstances in which it would be a completely inappropriate and onerous burden on a tenant to require them to have the property fumigated.

I am really impressed with the restraint shown by the Hon. Emma Hurst in putting this amendment in such an incredibly reasonable way, instead of just seeking to gut the provision from the bill. The Greens support both of these amendments. The idea that during a cost-of-living crisis, tenants should be expected to pay even more than they already are is extraordinary. This provision being buried in this way is also extraordinary. The Hon. Emma Hurst has given the Government a "get out of jail free" card on this but it is choosing not to take it.

On a further amendment, Abigail said (21:13): 

The Greens support the amendments for all the great reasons the honourable member laid out when she moved them. They are eminently sensible amendments that could have been made to the legislation to improve it before it got passed tonight. It is a shame that will not to happen. I again thank the member for bringing these amendments. I also thank all of our amazing stakeholders and advocates who have contacted the office of the member for Newtown. We will continue to fight for reforms to our laws that will actually allow people to keep pets in rentals and that will finally take significant action to address the homelessness crisis and the domestic violence crisis in our State.

On a further amendment, Abigail said (21:22): 

The Greens support the amendments. There was a comment that the process within the bill around pets in rentals is straightforward, simple and quick. There is nothing in the bill that meets that test for a tenant who has been denied a pet. It is already possible for a tenant to ask their landlord to be able to have a pet. The amendments would simply put that common and regular practice into law. The idea that the amendments make things less clear does not check out. The Greens moved amendments in the lower House to shift the onus to the landlord to take the denial of a pet to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, because landlords have more resources than tenants do. The Greens support any shift of onus to the landlord rather than the tenant. Those amendments were rejected in the lower House. The Hon. Emma Hurst has moved amendments that seek to find the middle ground and find a better balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. It is disappointing that Labor cannot even support that compromise position. It would have just made the bill go from being—I think when I first read it I described it as "meh" when it came to pets in rentals. The bill could have been just that little bit better. The argument that we often hear on a Thursday night in this place—"We're not making any amendments because we've already sent the lower House home"—cannot even be made. We are able to make these amendments. These ones are eminently sensible. We have lost such an opportunity for the bill to have made a real, meaningful difference, rather than just taking the status quo when it comes to pets in rentals and putting it into law. It is incredibly disappointing that Labor could not even support these amendments.

Read the full debate including each amendment in Hansard here.