Residential Tenancy Amendment (Pets) Bill 2025 (No. 40)

Wednesday 5 November 2025 [5.12 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I thank the Deputy Leader for bringing the bill forward today and for the briefings. I will make a few remarks.

This bill is set to amend the Residential Tenancy Act 1997 to enable tenants to apply to the owner of a property they are renting to keep one or more pets, with the owner only being able to refuse the keeping of a pet on reasonable grounds. This is a permission-based model, as the Deputy Leader mentioned. Refusal by a landlord needs to be on reasonable grounds, taking into account things like whether or not the pets will cause a nuisance on the property or any adjacent ones, damage that's more than reasonable wear and tear, safety risks, and any other grounds which TASCAT might consider reasonable in the circumstances.

We are in the midst of a housing crisis and it's harder than ever for many people to obtain a place to live, pets or not, and it's important we are in fact making it easier for people to find rentals and not harder. I am not sure if this bill will necessarily achieve that. I will foreshadow I have an amendment I will be bringing forward. However, I will say at this time it's important to recognise that renters deserve, and in fact already have, many rights, and that landlords do provide a valuable service to our community, even though they can appear to be treated less than fairly at times, especially in the media.

It is important we legislate policies that facilitate good relationships between landlords and tenants, and that tenants pay their rent on time, keep their properties clean, tidy and in good order, that landlords stump up for essential repairs and maintenance, and that a fair price for rent is charged to tenants. It is important to remember even though it's difficult for many people to buy homes, rentals will always be essential. Not everyone wants to make the decades-long commitment to a mortgage and they value the ability to flexibly move away or move back as they need to. Therefore, not micromanaging the relationships that landlords and tenants form with each other through rental agreements is, in my opinion, quite important.

It should be the case that landlords and tenants have the flexibility to negotiate their own terms based on the individual characteristics of a rental property and the potential tenants' needs. We should be facilitating these sorts of good relationships and not putting people off providing rental properties in the Tasmanian market. That's why I have some reservations about this bill. I am not sure if this will be the result.

I have asked several people and several different groups in real estate. I am not going to name them even though they've said I can. One email I received today ‑ after the latest iteration of the bill ‑ was from a lady who runs a very large rental property. She has many properties and says:

Without even reviewing the bill in detail, my understanding is that the onus will still fall on the property owner to apply for an order if they wish to decline a pet. This, in my opinion, is one of the key issues that will continue to drive investors out of the market. Many owners simply will not accept being dictated to when it comes to decisions about pets in their own properties. Our vacancy rate has been sitting below 1 per cent for more than 18 months, which is a critically low level. We're already seeing investors exit the market due to fluctuating interest rates, increased insurance rates, land tax, and all other outgoings, and this type of legislation will only add to the pressure.

There are some good safeguards in the bill, including defining ineligible animals, such as unregistered, unmicrochipped dogs and cats, and ensuring any unreasonable wear and tear on the property is recoverable by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. This is only fair, not just for the landlord, but for any subsequent tenants who may live at the property. As the Deputy Leader mentioned, the bill seeks to achieve a balance of rights and safety of tenants, along with the interests of the owner.

I have had pets. I don't have a pet at the moment, mainly because we live on a very busy main street. In all honesty, I couldn't trust Bruce to make sure our cat or dog didn't get run over when I wasn't home. Being totally honest here, I'm sure my little cat or dog could have a little bit more free time than I would like it to have when I'm in Hobart, so, unfortunately, I don't have a pet at the moment.

Ms O'Connor - Can you text him, member, to remind him to feed and water?

Ms ARMITAGE - I wasn't worried about feeding and watering. I was more concerned that it might get out through the front fence and get run over. That was more my concern, a little bit more concerning than feeding and watering. I am sure he'd remember that.

I do accept how difficult it is for people with animals. At the moment, I share a granddaughter dog when it comes to visit. I read on 11 June 2024 ‑ the bill has been around for a while ‑ about a family who finally found a home to rent. They got a dog and, unfortunately, discovered they actually couldn't have a pet on their property. As they say, it was heartbreaking. The dog had to go somewhere else. It simply couldn't be at the home.

I can understand that, particularly with children. My grandchildren have pets. They have a dog and a cat. While I was in Western Australia recently, my son rented out a property to people with two dogs and a cat and I was a little bit taken aback, but they said, 'Hey, mum, that's fine, the property will have to be in the same condition when we get it back as when they rented it'. It is just commonplace, and Western Australia obviously has the same bill or along similar lines to us.

Another comment came from the Tasmanian Residential Rental Property Owners Association:

The removal of this fair right from owners will be too much for some who will instead leave their property vacant, switch to visitor accommodation or sell. And while some may celebrate the sale of an investment property, it is twice as likely that this property will be sold to an owner-occupier rather than returning to the rental market ...

And I accept, okay, it's still going and someone's living in it, but a lot of people can't afford to buy a property and it's taking it out of the rental market. Another comment from a business that looks after rental properties:

Our primary concern revolves around the lack of adequate protection for property owners' assets. The fact is pets can cause considerable damage to rental properties, far exceeding normal wear and tear. The current process for claiming damages from the bond is insufficient and claiming damages from the ongoing tenant is either unsuccessful or slow due to affordability issues. The Tenancy Commissioner frequently rules against pet damage claims, unless the property owner pays for repairs upfront with no guarantee of reimbursement from the bond. This places an unfair financial burden on property owners and creates a disincentive to allow pets.

Increased cost for property management: managing the implications of this legislation will inevitably increase the cost for property management services. Agents will need to raise their management fees to cover the additional workload, which will be passed on to property owners. This, combined with rising interest rates, insurance costs, maintenance expenses will lead to higher rents, making it even more challenging for tenants in an already tight rental market. Ultimately, the legislation will place renters in a far worse position.

I actually got a call from a lady who owned a rental property, and she wanted to point out to me that it's not just dogs and cats or ferrets or pigs. She mentioned rabbits and she said that she actually rented a property to a couple who had rabbits and every time they did their checks the property seemed absolutely perfectly fine. But when they moved out, they discovered that all the rugs covering the floors and all the mats were actually covering all the holes where the rabbits had chewed the carpet, and there were a variety of holes throughout the house, plus in the wardrobes, where they chewed the plaster on the corners.

I also contacted the Real Estate Institute because when I was speaking recently to a government minister, it was pointed out to me that the Real Estate Institute was fairly happy with the bill as it was, so I thought I would check. Michelle Tynan, Chief Executive Officer of REIT, says:

The Real Estate Institute of Tasmania (REIT) supports Rosemary Armitage's amendment to the pets in rentals bill, as it seeks to strike a fair balance between tenants' rights and landlords' ability to manage their properties responsibly. The amendment acknowledges the emotional and social benefits of pet ownership while maintaining reasonable safeguards for property owners. REIT believes this practical approach fosters greater cooperation and mutual respect between tenants and landlords.

Equally important, however, is the scheduled 2026 review of the Residential Tenancy Act 1997, which provides an essential opportunity to assess how these changes function in practice. This review will ensure that emerging challenges, including those arising from pet‑friendly policy settings, are properly addressed within a comprehensive framework that supports both property investment and housing affordability and accessibility as the national housing crisis worsens. Together, these initiatives aim to create a more balanced and sustainable rental market across Tasmania.

I will mention, Mr President, that prior to the last election, when this bill had gone through the lower House, I had my amendment drafted and met with a representative from the government to see if they would support my amendment. Surprise, surprise, they said they absolutely would, and asked me if I'd go further with my amendments. Of course, at the time I told them no ‑ it was my amendment, and if they wanted to do more, they could do more themselves. However, following the election, and with no significant changes to the bill ‑ or none that affect my amendment ‑ the government has done a backflip and no longer supports my amendments. I'm not going to guess why, but I'm very surprised that all of a sudden, an amendment they thought was absolutely fantastic, and could I 'do a little bit more', is out the window and not supported by the government.

It's probably just as easy to mention what my amendment is about, then I won't have to do it when it actually comes. My amendment, I believe, strikes a fairer balance between the rights of tenants and their pets, and landlords. We need to be careful with this bill to ensure that it does not have the effect of landlords exiting the rental market and placing further pressure on an already volatile and hostile rental market. It's already difficult enough for people to get rentals. I know everybody has people coming into their offices with difficulty trying to find a rental property. I'm quite sure that having a pet would make an already difficult situation even harder.

My amendment seeks to relieve part of the burden placed on landlords under this act to place the onus on a tenant to seek orders from the tribunal in the case of refusal, rather than the landlord in the case of a deemed approval. This is modelled on the South Australian Residential Tenancies Act 1995 which, under section 66E, states that if a tenant receives a notice refusing their application the tenant may apply to the tribunal for an order, which may involve the tribunal:

·                confirming the refusal of approval to keep a pet,

·                varying or revoking a condition of an approval for keeping a pet,

·                permitting a pet to stay on the premises, or

·                any such ancillary or other orders which the tribunal considers appropriate.

Similarly, my amendment permits and places the onus on a tenant in the case of refusal to apply to the tribunal for orders in the case that a landlord seeks to withdraw consent or in the case of a pet being on the premises in relation to which no consent has been given and which may not be kept on those premises.

This, I believe, empowers landlords a bit more in the case of a bill which seeks to quite significantly change the rights of landlords and tenants. It doesn't affect the factors taken into consideration about reasonable grounds for refusal, nor what the tribunal can and can't take into account. It simply ensures that landlords aren't saddled with too many additional burdens when we're already asking them to make additional accommodations under this bill.

I understand that, to many people, their pets are family ‑ mine have always been family ‑ and that pets and pet owners deserve homes. We are already operating in a rental market with oversaturated demand. While I understand this policy seeks to give people with pets more renting options, we don't want it to have the opposite, unintended effect of having fewer rental properties on the market as a result.

It's worth remembering that landlords take on significant risk and liabilities when they purchase properties to rent out, filling an important need, and I want to make sure that they still have some say over who and what resides in their properties.

I should mention that I have no conflict of interest. I don't rent property and I don't have a rental property, so it certainly doesn't benefit me one way or the other. I am really concerned that people may leave the rental market, and it will make the situation even worse for those people, particularly people with pets. I accept that. As I said, pets are like family, and I know from the past when I have had little dogs, they're like children. In fact, they probably behave better than your children. They're always happy to see you, they don't complain, and they don't ask for money, so there's certainly a benefit to having pets.

The only other question I have ‑ and it was mentioned today in the briefing ‑ is about TASCAT and the time lines for TASCAT: how long it may take for a decision. If someone does ask for a pet to be in a home, what happens with that pet in the meantime? I believe that's a consideration. If someone has a rental property and the owner has said no, the owner, under this bill, applies to TASCAT. The animal can't be at the home, I assume, while the decision is being made. There could be quite a cost to having the animal in a cattery or a home for a dog. Some of those places are quite expensive. It might be very difficult for someone if they can move into the home with their children and they have nowhere for their animal to go.

It's certainly a question that needs asking ‑ what happens in the meantime? You can't expect the landowner to pay for the animal to be boarded. There's no guarantee that the tenant can afford for the animal to be boarded either. Depending on how long TASCAT can take, and I understand from the briefings today that they will be dealing with things fairly quickly, but we actually don't know, because it's untested waters. I'm sure they have plenty of other things that they do.

I also wonder about resources ‑ whether we will be further resourcing TASCAT for the extra work they will be doing so there aren't any great delays. I'm sure there are members here who have their cats or dogs go into boarding and would be aware of the costs, but I assume it's a reasonable amount to leave your pet somewhere. I wonder what is going to happen in that interim, if it's a couple of weeks. The timeline would be really interesting to know, too ‑ how long it takes. Someone would have to apply to TASCAT, by the time you apply, it goes through the process with TASCAT, they get back to you ‑ it could quite easily take two to three weeks, even a month. That's a considerable period if someone's actually able to move into the home but then has no answer about their pet.

They are a few questions I have. I will likely support the bill regardless, because I think it is really important. I support people with pets. I understand that they are like family. I still believe we need to be letting the owners feel that they have a bit of power back. They have purchased the home; it is their property. It might have been their home in the past that they're now renting out. While we do tend to give a lot to the renters, I feel we need to give a little power back to owners.

My amendment isn't a big amendment. It's simply changing the appeal rights from the owner to the renter, which I don't think is a huge change. However, my understanding is, from REIT and also from the other groups I've spoken to that work with rental properties, that it might be enough for some people to keep their rental properties rather than decide to turn them into Airbnbs or sell them, which I believe, in this difficult market, would be terrible for people who are looking for properties.