Residential Parks Bill 2026 (No 2)

Thursday 25 June 2026

[4.04 p.m.] Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Thank you, Mr President. I thank the Leader for bringing the bill forward. I have a few remarks to make. The bill creates some quite significant legal changes for both owners and operators of caravan and holiday parks and longer-term residents. This bill effectively creates a presumption that anyone who has lived in a caravan park for 90 days or more as their primary residence is considered a tenant of that park and is therefore granted a different set of rights.

Another thing I believe this bill does is it also vastly changes the responsibilities of caravan and holiday park owners, operators and managers. It will add duties to them that involve those similar to a landlord with rental properties rather than a holiday park owner-operator whose responsibilities extend only to those related to holiday stays.

These are vastly different things. People's places of residence do need to be protected with basic rights. Warmth in winter, cooling in summer, safe cooking and washing facilities, insurance and contractual matters all need to be regulated in this regard. But owner-operators, the people whose responsibilities will be changed by this legislation, also need support and assistance.

The business models of owner-operators of holiday and caravan parks in Tasmania are just that: holiday and caravan parks, not residential parks. Their entire business models have been devised to run places that are intended for holiday stays. To this end I'm not sure if the government is really taking the industry along with them, so to speak, but rather, unilaterally changing the playing field.

As we know, Tasmania relies heavily on holiday and caravan parks to provide tourists with safe, pleasant places to stay and a fun experience. We have to be mindful that changing the responsibilities of owner-operators could significantly change the character of these places. We should be doing everything we can to allow these businesses to focus on providing great short-stay and holidays stays, and I'm not sure if adding landlord responsibilities to that is very sensible. I therefore have some questions, and I know much has been answered but I'd like it to be on the record for anyone reading Hansard.

I'd like to put it to the Leader in the hope I can get a better understanding of the policies driving this bill, and the changes it will have for owner-operators, as well as those who stay with them. Firstly, I'd like to know more about how the timeline of 90 days was devised. As I've foreshadowed, the difference in rights between people who have resided at a caravan park for 89 days compared to 90 days are vastly different, yet only separated by a matter of hours. Two very different, distinct classes of people are being created by this bill, so how are borderline cases resolved? I'd also like to understand better how existing rental rights apply to those living in holiday and caravan parks. For example, would the right to keep a pet now be extended to people who this legislation would apply to?

I have reached out to owner-operators, and they have expressed concern to me about the difficulties this legislation will raise for them. There will be many additional situations that owner-operators will have to contend with. These take time and resources to resolve - time that then cannot be spent on ensuring that holiday-makers are getting the best possible experiences when they visit Tasmania. I would also like to know what sort of support is going to be provided to owner-operators, especially in terms of legal support such as devising contracts and dispute resolution processes.

These are completely uncharted waters for Tasmanian holiday parks. I don't think it's necessarily fair to expect them to navigate them all on their own. I also note and acknowledge the advice we received from those in the industry during briefings. Their input was helpful and valuable. In particular, operators support the intent of the bill and any measure which creates clarity and certainty around the rights of both operators and residents of holiday and caravan parks.

There is support for clear legal frameworks and express rights and responsibilities for all parties involved. From the briefing provided, I'm of the understanding there are concerns surrounding the way the bill is currently drafted, specifically that the bill may unintentionally capture accommodation arrangements that are not genuinely long-term residents, which in turn creates uncertainty for park operators and residents. Furthermore, this may have the unintended consequence of certain forms of accommodation being reduced or withdrawn from the market altogether, which is absolutely not the outcome any of us want.

Firstly, I understand that the bill appears to be directed at long-term residents who own their dwelling and occupy a site within a residential park. A more specific definition, however, is being asked for. As noted in the briefing, holiday and caravan parks offer a huge range of dwellings including cabins, vans, caravans, glamping tents, motorhome sites and other forms of temporary and short-stay accommodation.

To this end, it has been asked that the bill expressly exclude park providers' short-stay accommodation, including cabins, caravans and vans, and make clear that where accommodation is supplied with a dwelling owned or controlled by the operator, it is not a residential park agreement unless it's specifically intended and documented as a long-term residential arrangement. If the Leader could please provide some information that could help address these concerns, I'd be most grateful.

I'm sure much of it has been, but it's really good to have it on the record, certainly to have it on Hansard even though I know some of it has been clarified in briefings. I've already touched on the 90 days giving rise to the creation of long-term residential rights. There are a few more remarks I would make in the context of the briefings that we have received, particularly this week. While I'm aware there are factors beyond just a 90-day stay, including things like where a person is registered to vote, mail forwarding and so on, there's still a great deal of uncertainty surrounding it.

It is fair that park operators should be able to know whether they are entering into residential arrangements before that arrangement arises, not after the fact. This might mean creating an obligation for a resident to disclose this at the earliest possible opportunity. Also raised in briefings was the issue of worker and staff accommodation. As I said, I know that many of these issues have been resolved. However it would be really good just to have the answers on the Hansard for the people who have come to me, so they can see them clearly in one place. Having a place for seasonal or project-based employees and staff is integral to Tasmania's economy. From agriculture to health care, we need this sort of accommodation.

In plenty of instances, such workers are in residence for 90 days or more and have no other primary residence during this time, endowing them with long-term residential rights, even though it's very obvious they will return home, possibly interstate or overseas, in the not-too-distant future. What has been asked for is a specific exemption for this type of resident to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of both the park owner-operators and the residents are clear and relevant to the circumstances.

Finally, the issues around legal complexities like insurance and zoning have been raised. Where a person becomes a long-term resident of a place like a holiday or caravan park, their legal responsibilities also change. This includes having an adequate level of insurance to protect themselves and the people who are living or staying around them. Moreover, how does local and regional zoning work where specific rights are being created for people to live in holiday and caravan parks as a long-term resident or tenant? Will consequential zoning alterations need to be made? Who will therefore become responsible for resourcing and making those assessments? What is being asked for here is a clear allocation of risk, the cornerstone of any contractual relationship.

Legislating to require a resident to show they possess adequate levels of insurance to protect themselves and those around them is not unreasonable. I hope the Leader is able to provide some assistance or advice. I know there are many varied concerns relating to the bill, but they are important. We want people to be able to stay in residential parks and have the option of extending that into a longer-term arrangement with the security and safety that tenants of other properties get.

I think many valid concerns have been raised and, again, know that holiday and caravan park owners and operators support the intent of the bill and the policy behind it. What is being asked for is clarity and certainty, which is ultimately beneficial to everyone in the end. If I could have some answers to the questions and I probably know the answers to many of them, but it's really important to have them on the record, so they are in one place for people to be able to find. I certainly will support the bill.

RESIDENTIAL PARKS BILL 2026 (No. 2)

In Committee

Continued from Thursday 25 June 2026 (page 66).

Clause 69 -

Termination of residential park agreements

Madam CHAIR - While everyone is getting themselves set, I'll just remind members that we are up to clause 69. Two members have spoken on this: one speak for the member for Launceston and one speak for the member for Montgomery. One each, just so everyone knows where everyone's at. Thank you.

Ms RATTRAY - Thank you, Madam Chair. In regard to this particular clause, members may recall that questions were posed to the Committee and to the Leader, and there was a decision to provide a more fulsome answer. That has been provided by way of a letter to members from the Deputy Premier responsible for the bill. I'm happy to table that letter if that would suffice for members.

Ms Armitage - Should you read it out, do you think?

Ms RATTRAY - I could certainly read it out if -

Ms Armitage - It's only going to be a couple of minutes. It would make it clearer.

Ms RATTRAY - That's fine, okay. The letter was - and this is to the Leader for Government Business in the Legislative Council:

Ms Rattray,

Thank you for progressing the Residential Parks Bill 2026 in the Legislative Council. The bill is an important priority for the Tasmanian government and I look forward to its protections for residents and park operators being implemented.

During the Committee stage, Ms Rosemary Armitage MLC and Mr Casey Hiscutt MLC raised concerns about how the bill, once commenced, would interact with the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, as well as broader planning laws and regulatory requirements. I am pleased to provide the following additional information in response to those concerns.

Interaction with LUPAA

Caravan and holiday parks operate across Tasmania on land subject to a range of zonings including rural, landscape conservation, recreation, commercial and tourism, and particular purpose zones established through local planning provisions.

Under some planning schemes, these parks are intended primarily to provide visitor accommodation rather than accommodation as a person's principal place of residence. As a result, some parks may be operating in circumstances that are not clearly contemplated by the applicable planning scheme, or where the application of existing planning controls is uncertain.

Our government does not consider that the introduction of these important broader protections for residents should be delayed while planning and zoning issues affecting individual parks are resolved. Therefore, the bill does not itself rezone land or automatically override existing planning controls. Instead, Schedule 1 contains a transitional regulation‑making power for up to five years after the legislation commences. Regulations may exclude the operation of specified provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 or the Tasmanian Planning Scheme in relation to prescribed parks or sites. Regulations affecting planning matters may only be made after receiving advice from Building Tasmania as the department responsible for administering the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

The government included this transitional power specifically to enable action to be taken in circumstances such as those at Beauty Point. Subject to the required advice and the process prescribed by the bill, regulations can exclude the relevant planning controls so that the bill's other important protections can operate while any necessary planning scheme amendment, rezoning or other longer-term solution is progressed.

South Australia, whose legislation informed the development of this bill, adopted a two‑stage approach. The Residential Parks Act 2007 (SA) established protections for residents without seeking to resolve the associated complex planning issues. Those issues were addressed separately over subsequent years through amendments to the planning framework that recognised the longstanding practical circumstances faced by park owners, long‑term residents and local authorities.

I believe it is important to be clear that not proceeding with this bill will leave park residents in a precarious position without necessary rights and protections.

Similarly, while different drafting approaches to this issue were considered in the development of this bill, the inclusion of making substantive changes to planning laws and controls in this bill would result in lengthy delays in legislating these important protections.

Insurance for residents

The government acknowledges that appropriate and affordable insurance is a significant challenge for many Tasmanians. As the

honourable Mike Gaffney MLC noted during his contribution on the bill, some residents may already be unable to obtain suitable insurance for their dwellings. Where appropriate insurance is unavailable or unaffordable, imposing a statutory requirement for residents to hold such insurance would prevent them from entering into or continuing a residential park agreement.

It is also likely that some long-term residents do not currently hold insurance for their dwellings. Making insurance mandatory could therefore place those residents at risk of being required to leave their park. This would undermine the protective purpose of the legislation and could expose vulnerable Tasmanians to displacement or homelessness.

Thank you again for your continued support for the Residential Parks Bill 2026. I trust this information will assist you and other members of the Legislative Council in your further consideration of the bill.

Yours sincerely,

Hon. Guy Barnett MP, Deputy Premier, Minister for Small Business, Trade and Consumer Affairs.

Ms ARMITAGE - Chair, I have sought advice on the clarification from the Leader, and I do have a question. The view remains that the underlying planning and zoning matters are complex and ideally should be resolved through the planning system.

The proposed transitional approach appears designed to allow these protections to commence while longer-term planning solutions are pursued. But there remains potential for tension between planning controls and residential occupation in some parks. While the government's new approach provides greater clarity, it does not entirely remove the risk that future planning, rezoning or regulatory processes may still be required on a site-by-site basis. Will the government put on the record that it will, after the terms that are in the letter, actually make progress with regards to sorting out these LUPAA issues?

It's all very well to say it goes for five years, but I think we need something on the record to say that the government actually will look to rectify it rather than we get a lot on the phone and someone goes to TASCAT that there are some real issues for people in the caravan park. So, I would like something on the record to say they will do it.