Body paragraphs and what syllabus themes and challenges they work for: NCAT ➢ The role of the law in encouraging cooperation and resolving conflict in regard to shelter. ➢ Issues of compliance and non compliance Rental Bond board NSW ➢ The role of the law in encouraging cooperation and resolving conflict in regard to shelter. ➢ Issues of compliance and non compliance Home Building service NSW ➢ Issues of compliance and non compliance Aged care ➢ Law reform ➢ laws relating to shelter as a reflection of changing values and ethical standards ➢ Legal and non-legal responses Rights of tenants ➢ Law reform ➢ laws relating to shelter as a reflection of changing values and ethical standards ➢ Legal and non-legal responses Real estate agents ➢ Law reform ➢ laws relating to shelter as a reflection of changing values and ethical standards Homelessness ➢ laws relating to shelter as a reflection of changing values and ethical standards ➢ Legal and non-legal responses Discrimination ➢ The role of the law in encouraging cooperation and resolving conflict in regard to shelter. ➢ Law reform ➢ Legal and non-legal responses Affordability ➢ laws relating to shelter as a reflection of changing values and ethical standards ➢ Legal and non-legal responses Social housing ➢ The role of the law in encouraging cooperation and resolving conflict in regard to shelter. ➢ Issues of compliance and non compliance ➢ Law reform Affordability Affordability is a critical component of the affordability, social housing and homelessness triad and is defined as “housing which is appropriate to the needs of low to moderate income households (Housing NSW); typically referring to the relationship between housing expenditure and household incomes. The great extent of the affordability crisis is modelled by the average household in Sydney paying up to 29% of their income on rent (rental affordability index, 2017), whereby definition spending 30% of a household's income on housing costs means a household is in “housing stress”. This extreme affordability crisis that has seen the average property price in sydney hit $1.3 million, has hindered vulnerable people and first home buyers from the provision of affordable shelter. Legal responses have reacted to the affordability crisis to a great extent, whereby the government has planned to establish the Family Home Guarantee, an initiative that will give 10,000 guarantees over four years to single parents, allowing them a 2% deposit on a mortgage, with the rest subsidised by the government. This equitable response aims to reduce the “necessary discrimination” on the grounds of financial capability, that banks use to avoid lending mortages to single parents, who typically are of lower financial capacity. By paying 2%, rather than a 20% deposit, single parents are enabled to secure a mortgage that would allow them to purchase shelter and enter the competitive housing market, making this a promising initiative in achieving affordable housing. However, the limited accessibility of this initiative being 10,000 people across 4 years, means this solution is an inadequate long term approach that doesn’t extend to a large enough population of people to address affordability issues that are magnified by discrimination. Similarly, the First Home Super Saver Scheme (FHSS) aimed at empowering first home buyers to enter the competitive market is a legal response that has addressed affordability to some extent. It allows first home buyers to make voluntary contributions to their super, take advantage of paying lower tax on this money, and then withdraw these funds to help buy their first home. This was reformed to allow participants to save more money through their super accounts, fron $30,000 to $50,000 from July 2022. However, despites it’s promising aspects, many experts such as Dr Katrina Raynor, a research fellow at the University of Melbourne, says the change to the FHSSS is "tinkering around the edges" and won't help housing affordability from an equity perspective. Thus, overall legal responses holistically have been mildly effective in addressing affordability by only remedying short term issues, rather than working towards long term plans. Discrimination Discrimination is a pressing issue within the hosuing market, where many people are inequitably limited to their opportunity of housing by their characteristics, such as gender, age etc. The Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 is the overarching peice of legislation that outlaws the unjust discrimination of people on the basis of their characteristics, however this is challenged largely in relation to shleter by “necessary discrimination”. Legal responses have reacted to the way in which financial discrimination in particular as “necessary discrimination”, has largley impacted on signle parnet and single income families to a great extent through the Family Home Guarantee; which is an initiative that will give 10,000 guarantees over four years to single parents, allowing them a 2% deposit on a mortgage, with the rest subsidised by the government. This equitable response aims to reduce the “necessary discrimination” on the grounds of financial capability, that banks use to avoid lending mortages to single parents, who typically are of lower financial capacity. By paying 2%, rather than a 20% deposit, single parents are enabled to secure a mortgage that would allow them to purchase shelter and enter the competitive housing market, making this a promising initiative in addressing discrimination in housing. However, the limited accessibility of this initiative being 10,000 people across 4 years, means this solution is an inadequate long term approach that doesn’t extend to a large enough population of people to address affordability issues that are magnified by discrimination. Anti Social Behaviour Agreements (ABAs), which were introduced in 2001 are examples of legal responses that model the discriminatory nature of the law that has unfairly targeted a group, solely on their basis of residence. ABAs allow social housing tenants to be first provided with a warning, however if behaviour that conflicts with their tenancy obligations continues, the Housing Department NSW can evict the tenant. ‘Antisocial behaviour’ can include yelling, aggression, disturbance, as well as other actions which all conflict with the upholding of their obligations as social housing tenants; obligations that no other residential tenants, only social housing tenants are bound by. Thus... Discrimination x Social Hosuing Discrimination is a pressing issue within the hosuing market, where many people are inequitably limited to their opportunity of housing by their characteristics, such as gender, age etc. The Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 is the overarching peice of legislation that outlaws the unjust discrimination of people on the basis of their characteristics, however this is challenged largely in relation to shleter by “necessary discrimination”. Legal responses have reacted to the way in which financial discrimination in particular as “necessary discrimination”, has largley impacted on signle parnet and single income families to a great extent through the Family Home Guarantee; which is an initiative that will give 10,000 guarantees over four years to single parents, allowing them a 2% deposit on a mortgage, with the rest subsidised by the government. This equitable response aims to reduce the “necessary discrimination” on the grounds of financial capability, that banks use to avoid lending mortages to single parents, who typically are of lower financial capacity. By paying 2%, rather than a 20% deposit, single parents are enabled to secure a mortgage that would allow them to purchase shelter and enter the competitive housing market, making this a promising initiative in addressing discrimination in housing. However, the limited accessibility of this initiative being 10,000 people across 4 years, means this solution is an inadequate long term approach that doesn’t extend to a large enough population of people to address affordability issues that are magnified by discrimination. Anti Social Behaviour Agreements (ABAs), which were introduced in 2001 are examples of legal responses that model the discriminatory nature of the law that has unfairly targeted a group, solely on their basis of residence. ABAs allow social housing tenants to be first provided with a warning, however if behaviour that conflicts with their tenancy obligations continues, the Housing Department NSW can evict the tenant. ‘Antisocial behavior’ can include yelling, aggression, disturbance, as well as other actions which all conflict with the upholding of their obligations as social housing tenants; obligations that no other residential tenants, only social housing tenants are bound by. Thus... Homelessness: The definition of homelessnes is a dynamic ideology that has shifted over time, however it’s prevalence has remained a pressing issue within shelter. Australian federal law defines homelessness as “inadequate access to safe and secure housing”, where the 2016 Census found that there were 37,715 people in NSW who were classified as homeless, showing an increase of 37% from 2011. Homelessness catalyses a slippery slope in the rescindment of a multitude of human rights, such as the right to privacy, education, personal safety, the right to vote etc. This issue magnifies the discrimination within the hosuing market, as many population subgroups such as woemn, indigenous people and children/young people are disproportionately affected by homelessnes, highlighting the vast ineffectiveness of legal responses. The primary homelessness legislation, (part 7) of the Housing Act 1996 provides the statutory under-pinning actions to prevent homelessness and provide assistance to people threatened with, or experiencing homelessness. However, the Australian government has also been urged to consider a ‘new duty to assist’ law, which would force the government to help homeless people find accommodation, amidst warning that the rate of homelessness is spiralling out of control and funding is drying up, due to the ineffectiveness of their preventative strategies to address homelessnes. In 2008, the federal government released its white paper on homelessness, The Road Home: A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness and committed to a target of halving the number of people experiencing homelessness by 2020. The paper set interim targets of reducing this number by 20% by 2013, however, this target was not met, as total homelessness had actually increased by this time. The Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 was another legal response that models the law’s ineffectiveness. Firstly, it repeals the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act 1994 to make way for the proposed Homelessness Act 2013. Secondly, it repeals the definition of homelessness person in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and substitutes a new definition that is in line with that contained in the Homelessness Bill 2013. This act once again introduced legal responses, already attempted within the Housing act 1996, despite it’s statistically proven inefficiency, when homelessness numbers rose despite their legal efforts. It also aimed to “outline the Commonwealth's recognition of persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and the general means through which it intends to reduce homelessness and support people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness”, where it’s lack of specificity and enforceability simply redefined the definition of homelessness, rather than outline specific strategies to alleviate it’s prevalence within Australia. Thus, the scarcity of legal responses that outline specific measures to address homelessness have been largely ineffective and dually, overburdened non-legal responses. Non-legal responses for affordability/social housing/homelessness The National Housing and Homelessness agreement 2018 (NHHA) models the high level of effectiveness that non-legal responses uphold in addressing the underlying issues of the __contemp issue___, crisis. The NHHA is created subject to the provisions of the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 and It replaced the ten-year National Affordable Housing Agreement to address the underlying causes of the social housing, homelessness and affordability triad. It is essentially a funding agreement between state and federal governments to ensure everyone has access to affordable and adequate shelter by producing long term solutions to __contemp issue___, by particularly prioritising vulnerable population subgroups (eg families of DV, children and young people, people experiencing repeat homelessness ATSI etc). The NHHA will provide $4.6 billion in Commonwealth funding to the States and Territories over the next three years, including $375 million for homelessness services which States will be required to match. Whereby, it’s success will be measured by total number of dwellings relative to the population, as well as the stock of affordable rental housing relative to the population (affordability) and the stock of social housing dwellings relative to the target population for social housing (social housing) etc. It also improves accountability, as states and territories are required to have publicly available housing and homelessness strategies, where each state will provide to the relevant Commonwealth Minister (or a relevant Commonwealth official) an annual statement of assurance that it has satisfied the requirements set out in the clause. This enforceability component of the non-legal response makes it a highly effective long term solution to the underlying instabilities in the housing market. Thus ... Non-legal responses for discrimination: Non-legal responses to address the highly prevelant issue of discrimination within the shelter market have been mostly effective in ensuring compliance with the Anti-discrimination act 1977 . The Anti-Discrimination board of NSW (ADNSW) is a repsonse that models the high effectiveness of non-legal measures in providing enforceable, resource efficient and easily accessible solutions for the remedificiation of discriminations. This independent statutory body is the NSW state government body that administers the anti-discrimination act throguh the reconcilliation of complaints, answering enquiries whilst raising and promoting awareness arounf the impacts of discriminationatory actions. Through their specialised work with niche population subgroups, who are often subject to discrimination as minorities, such as ATSI people, they have modelled a high level of competetnce and efficiency. Complaints from people who identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander represent 5.8% of all complaints received this year. The most common type of discrimination raised was race discrimination (with 55% of race complaints made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.) Their specialised services for Indigenous people as well as their partnership with Legal AId NSW since 2016 ensure easily accessible justice for victims of discrimination to a significiant extent. Their high level of effectiveness is similarly modelled by the case study of Janine* (name changed for privacy reasons), who was refused from rental accommodation after the real estate agent became aware of her homosexual orientation. Once she had lodged a complaint with the ADNSW, ADNSW contacted the agent and explained that discriminating against Janine because of her lesbianism was against the Anti-Discrimination Act. The complaint was resolved when the agent offered Janine alternative accommodation and agreed to review all the official policies for possible discriminatory practices. Henceforth, exhibiting their high level of effectiveness, however with, Approximately one-third of all enquiries not being covered by the Act (enquiries about types of discrimination and public areas not protected by the Act), more legal protection is needed to allow non-legal responses a higher level of effectiveness and capability to safeguard peoples right to not be discriminate against, particularly within the hosuing market. Introduction Shelter is a universal human right, defined under the Universal Declaration of Human rights 1948, article 25 and is an essential human right that safeguards the right of an individual to enjoy other human rights. The role of the law in encouraging cooperation and resolving conflict in regard to shelter. NCAT The law encourages cooperation and the resolution of conflict to a moderate extent in reference to tenancy agreements. The Residential Tenancies Act 2010 is the piece of legislation that clearly states the obligations of landlords, as well as gives the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) jurisdiction to hear and settle disputes about residential tenancies under the consumer and commercial division under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). NCAT is highly effective in resolving conflict, with most matters solved within 21 days and it also allows disputes to evade the court system; saving both time and money. For some residential disputes, such as those in strata schemes, mediation is compulsory prior to applying to NCAT, in order to promote cooperation between parties and endorse informal conflict resolution. NCAT can make enforceable decisions to resolve conflict under the relevant legislation, such as the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) for those in strata schemes.The NCAT is extremely effective in relation to the response of disputes heard, with a total 94.7% clearance ratio of all issues heard, however a legal loophole means the tribunal lacks enforceability where one party is interstate. “NSW tenancy agreements are potentially unenforceable against interstate landlords (ABC NEWS)” where “thousands of renters may discover their tenancy agreements are unenforceable if their landlord lives interstate.” The legal loophole emerged after the Court of Appeal declared that NCAT, which handles a range of small civil disputes, has no jurisdiction if one party lives in another state. This is exemplified in the Anna Jacobs and Sefton Darby Case, where the couple were forced to move out of their rented home due to toxic mould, however, when they took their landlord to court, they were unable to seek compensation as the “landlords agent announced that the landlord wanted the case dismissed as the tribunal is unable to enforce any law as he lived in South Australia”. This legal loophole means many tenants are unprotected and cannot use NCAT to resolve disputes or promote cooperation, therefore the NCAT encourages cooperation and resolution to a moderate extent. RENTAL BOND BOARD The law has encouraged cooperation and resolved conflict to a great extent in reference to bond money in tenancy agreements. The Landlord and Tenant (rental Boards) Act 1997 (NSW), was introduced to mandate the issues surrounding bond money and prevent conflicts arising from it’s misuse. The Rental Bond Board is the state set up independent custodian of rental bonds paid by tenants to landlords for residential tenancies, where all bond money must be lodged and registered. This independent body safeguards the bond money which is reclaimed at the cessation of a tenancy. This prevents disputes, whereby the landlord may lose or not be able to repay the bond in full to the tenant and also prevents the landlord from choosing to keep the bond money on arbitrary claims that are legally unjustified; protecting the rights of the tenant. The rental bond board and the legislation that underpins it is highly effective in preventing conflict, with 98% of the cases not requiring any form of dispute resolution and similarly, there was overall satisfaction with 70% of tenants promoting the service, exemplifying the great extent it protects the rights of those seeking shelter. This procedure also promotes cooperation between the tenant and the landlord by encouraging the tenant to care for a rental property in order to retain their bond money, whilst also safeguarding the right of the landlord to have their property left in an adequate state. In the Lin v Cornish (2015) case it was decided by NCAT that the landlord was entitled to $1237 dollars of the rental bond to pay for the “extensive repairs required for the premises” as a result of the tenant’s negligence. This case highlights the way in which the law has procedures in place as a safety net to resolve conflict if cooperation between the tenant and landlord falls through. Thus highlighting the way that the law has both cooperation incentives and conflict preventing and resolving measures in place that work coherently to a great extent. SOCIAL HOUSING The law promotes cooperation of those in social housing with laws and expectations to a moderate extent. Housing NSW governs social housing under the Housing Act 2001 (NSW), which states outs the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants, providing them with similar rights to residential landlords. The law promotes cooperation of tenants with these expectations through the introduced Anti-social Behaviour Agreements (ABA) in 2001. This allows tenants to be first provided with a warning, however if behaviour that conflicts with their tenancy obligations continues, the Housing Department NSW can evict the tenant. ‘Antisocial behavior’ can include yelling, aggression, disturbance, as well as other actions which all conflict with the upholding of their obligations as social housing tenants. However, as this system seems to ensure cooperation between social housing tenants and their behavioural expectations, the inadequacy of ABAs was highlighted by a smh article, “Good tenants forced out for christmas” (2014). This article explored the case of Mrs T; a neighbour to a social housing tenant, who moved out after many years of living in her home, as the ABAs she lodged against her neighbour were not addressed by Housing NSW. This highlights that while the laws regarding social housing promote cooperation and provide a complaints procedure for conflict resolution, it’s execution is not fully adequate. However, the Department and housing v Ozen CTTT, offers a differening outcome, where the conflict is resolved effectively. In this case, Mrs Ozen’s son was found to be in possession of drugs within her social housing residency and resultantly, she was evicted. At a tribunal that has now been replaced by NCAT, it was found that Mrs Ozen should be allowed to stay in her social housing due to her unblemished record that showed her cooperation with her obligations for 21 years. Hence, highlighting how the Housing Department (NSW) promotes social housing residents to cooperate with their tenancy obligations and responsibilities and offers mediums of conflict resolution to a moderate extent. Issues of compliance and non compliance HOME BUILDING SERVICE The law has promoted compliance with laws to a moderate extent in relation to the building and development of shelter. The Home Building Service is the arm of NSW Fair Trading whose main function is to ensure compliance with the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW). Under this Act, builders and tradespeople must have a licence to undertake residential building work, including specialist tradespeople, such as plumbers and electricians. The Act also sets up standards around competence, probity, contracts, statutory warranties and home warranty insurance to protect people against incomplete or faulty work. This was in response to many criticisms stating over the years that building contracts are too broad and do not provide adequate protection for people building a home. The Jaxon Construction Pty Ltd is a case that examples the effectiveness of the Home building service to ensure compliance, who fined the company $5,000 for negligence after carrying out unauthorised building works that deviated from the approved plans for the hotel development and the Building Services Board also issued an additional $2,500 fine to the builder’s nominated supervisor, for failing to properly manage and supervise the project. The investigators employed under the Home Building service are also able to issue a rectification order or can lodge a complaint to NCAT to have the complaint heard and determined, highlighting how effective the Home Building Service is at ensuring compliance with legal building standards and expectations. However the notorious Opal Tower case (2018) criticises the effectiveness of the Home Building Service and similar organisations to ensure compliance with construction laws. The residents of opal tower were evacuated after cracks in concrete beams were located on the 36th floor, where property insiders who recently rented out their apartments to other individuals have claimed a “great loss of income” as the market has put a red mark in the building with “almost no buying, selling or new rentals of the 392 apartments in the tower”. The lack of compliance with building standards endangered many people and has led to a multi-million dollar lawsuit with many losing money as a result of its over 500 building defects that make the property inhabitable. Thus highlighting how the Home Building Service has ensured compliance with the law to a moderate extent. NCAT The law encourages compliance between both landlord and tenants and the law to a moderate extent in reference to tenancy agreements. The Residential Tenancies Act 2010 is the piece of legislation that clearly states the obligations of landlords, as well as gives the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) jurisdiction to hear and settle non-compliance disputes about residential tenancies under the consumer and commercial division under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). NCAT is highly effective in resolving non-compliances with tenancy related laws in a time effective way, with most matters solved within 21 days, it also allows disputes of non-compliance to evade the court system; saving both time and money. For some residential disputes over compliance with laws, such as those in strata schemes, mediation is compulsory prior to applying to NCAT, in order to promote cooperation between parties and endorse informal conflict resolution. NCAT can make enforceable decisions to resolve issues of non-compliances under the relevant legislation, such as the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) for those in strata schemes.The NCAT is extremely effective in relation to the response of non-compliance disputes heard, with a total 94.7% clearance ratio of all issues heard, however a legal loophole means the tribunal lacks enforceability where one party is interstate. “NSW tenancy agreements are potentially unenforceable against interstate landlords (ABC NEWS)” ,where “thousands of renters may discover their tenancy agreements are unenforceable if their landlord lives interstate.” The legal loophole emerged after the Court of Appeal declared that NCAT, which handles a range of small civil disputes, has no jurisdiction if one party lives in another state. This is exemplified in the Anna Jacobs and Sefton Darby Case, where the couple were forced to move out of their rented home due to toxic mould, however, when they took their landlord to court, they were unable to seek compensation as the “landlords agent announced that the landlord wanted the case dismissed as the tribunal is unable to enforce any law as he lived in South Australia”. This legal loophole means many tenants are unprotected and cannot use NCAT to resolve disputes about non-compliance,if they’re landlord lives inter-state, therefore the NCAT resolves issues of non-compliance to a moderate extent. RENTAL BOND BOARD The law has ensured compliance with the law to a great extent in reference to bond money in tenancy agreements. The Rental Bond Board is the state set up independent custodian of rental bonds paid by tenants to landlords for residential tenancies, where all bond money must be lodged and registered and is set up by the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). This independent body safeguards the bond money which is reclaimed at the cessation of a tenancy to ensure compliance with the Landlord and Tenant (rental Boards) Act 1997 (NSW), which was introduced to mandate the issues surrounding bond money. The Rental Bond Board ensures compliance with the law and protects the rights of tenants, by preventing instances whereby the landlord may lose or not be able to repay the bond in full to the tenant and it also prevents the landlord from choosing to keep the bond money on arbitrary claims that are legally unjustified. The rental bond board is highly effective in ensuring compliance with rental bond money, with 98% of the cases not requiring any form of dispute resolution and similarly, there was overall satisfaction with 70% of tenants promoting the service, exemplifying the great extent it protects the rights of those seeking shelter by ensuring landlords comply with bond related legislation and procedures. This procedure also ensures the tenant complies with the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), by encouraging the tenant to uphold their legal and moral obligation to care for a rental property in order to retain their bond money, which safeguards the right of the landlord to have their property left in an “adequate state”. This is exemplified in the Lin v Cornish (2015) case where it was decided by NCAT that the landlord was entitled to $1237 dollars of the rental bond to pay for the “extensive repairs required for the premises” as a result of the tenant’s negligence. This case highlights the way that the law has procedures in place to amend non-compliances with bond money as a safety net to protect an individual’s rights if one party fails to comply with standards and expectations.Thus, highlighting the way that the law promotes compliance with rental bond money to a great extent. Law reform/ laws relating to shelter as a reflection of changing values and ethical standards AGED CARE FACILITIES The law has reformed to a great extent in order to protect those elderly people seeking shelter in retirement villages and aged care homes. Elderly people are some of the most vulnerable people within the Australian population and the high demand for aged care facilities in conjunction with their low supply, means many seeking shelter in a retirement village are exploited and taken advantage of. With the nation expected to have 50% more people 55+ by 2036, there is a substantial need for better protection of those seeking shelter in these facilities. The aged care act 1997 is the overarching piece of legislation that covers government funded aged care and outlines rules for funding and regulation. Each year, a report on the operation of this act is reported on to the Australian parliament as an introduced policy after the social backlash regarding many scandals within aged care facilities around 2017. The Kathryn Greiner (the Greiner report), was catalytic for the 2018 amendment of the amalgamation and reform of The Retirement Villages Act 1999 (NSW) and the Retirement Villages Regulation 2017 (NSW) into the Retirement Villages Amendment Act 2018 (NSW), which took on board the 17 recommendations of the report, including; a 90 day settling in period for the residents. The 17 recommendations incorporated into the law reform all cumulatively better protected the rights of those elderly people seeking shelter and enforces these reformed rights, whereby the amendment also provides for various penalties to apply to the act where these changes are not complied with, ranging from $2,200 to $22,000 for each offence. Similarly, the Quakers hill mass murder in an aged care faciltiy (2011) was catalytical for a colonial inquest held in 2014. This found a lack of fire sprinklers, meaning the rights of vulnerable elderly people seeking shelter in these facilities were insufficiently protected and thus the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (fire sprinklers) Regulation Act 2014 (NSW) was introduced to mandate the instalment of emergency fire sprinklers in aged care facilities. This law reform upheld the international right to an “adequate standard of living and health” and protects vulnerable elderly people seeking shelter in aged care facilities by outlining standards and expectations that those providing the shelter must meet. Thus, the law has reformed to a large extent in order to protect those elderly people seeking aged care shelter, however with 40% of aged care residents in these facilities having experienced abuse (ABC, 2020) more is needed to more extensively protect those seeking shelter. RIGHTS OF TENANTS/ RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT The law has also reformed to a significant extent to protect tenants who seek to rent shelter. Changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) came as a result of a statutory review from 2015-16, which provided a tabled report to parliament in 2016, proposing 27 recommendations. This led to the introduction of the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Review) Act 2018, which introduced a multitude of reforms and improvements, implementing a majority of the recommendations. The amendment reduced discretion within the previous act, particularly in relation to “fit for habitation”, by defining this through the introduction of seven minimum standards, some of which include; the rental property being structurally sound and having adequate ventilation. The amendment act reduced the landlord’s discretion in the adequacy of a rental property for a tenant and as a result, safeguards the right of those seeking rental shelter, by guaranteeing them a range of minimum standards to adequate shelter. This reform was largely needed after cases such as the Chloe Leeds case, where the property she was renting was “green with moss”, however when she moved out, the landlord took her to court for breaking the contract and the judge ruled she had to pay the remaining 6 months fees plus costs. This case examples the way that tenants rights were underprotected and highlights the need for the residential tenancies act reform. During 2019, the Residential Tenancies Regulation was developed to allow the reform to take effect, implement the recommendations and replace the current legislation. One of these changes included domestic violence provisions to protect those seeking rental shelter who are victim to domestic abuses. This allows the tenant to end a tenancy immediately if themselves or their child/dependant is in a domestic violence situation, without being penalised. If an AVO is granted that excludes a co-tenant (perpetrator) from accessing the property, the co-tenants’ tenancy will automatically end and the tenancy will simply be transferred to the victim. Otherwise, the victim can terminate their tenancy immediately in cases of domestic violence without penalty and are also excluded from liability of property damage caused by the perpetrator. The multitude of options victims of domestic violence seeking rental shelter are provided, recognises the intricate nature of domestic violence and protects the safety of those seeking rental shelter where the urgency of the situation and the safety of the victim is recognised and prioritised over tenancy contract details. Thus overall, the amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) protects the rights of those seeking shelter in relation to rental properties to a significant extent. REAL ESTATE AGENTS The law also protects those seeking the purchase of shelter to a great extent. The deceptiveness of real estate agents in order to favour the rights of the provider over the people seeking to secure shelter led to many people being taken advantage of when trying to purchase shelter by both underquoting and using ‘dummy bidders’. Real estate agents are underpinned in their actions by the Conveyancing act 1919 (NSW) , which mandates the legal assignment of property. However, real estate agents were often taking advantage of those seeking shelter at auctions, whereby they would invite ‘fake bidders’ to participate in auctions in order to drive the value of a property up. This meant many people trying to seek shelter ended up not being able to afford a property or paying an amount much greater than they needed to, this was restricted in the introduction of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (NSW), where those participating at auctions were required to register to prevent ‘dummy bidding’. This legislation was then further amended by the Property Stock and Business Agents Amendment (Property Industry Reform) Act 2018 (NSW) , in order to introduce a licensing system and extend the rules of conduct to better govern the conduct of agents working in the shelter industry. These reforms greatly limited the ways that those seeking shelter could be manipulated and thus protected their right to seek shelter in a fair and ethical way, as highlighted by the (SMH, 2005), “Dummy bidders now face $55k fine”, introduced as “part of sweeping real-estate reforms that aimed to improve the industry's transparency and ethical standards”, in order to protect the rights of those seeking shelter. Real estate agents were also often underquoting the value of a property in order to entice competition, meaning many people seeking shelter would lose money getting inspections on the property, only to later be ‘gazumped’, when the property was being sold for a much higher value than quoted. In order to protect those seeking shelter from being taken advantage of, the 2016 law reform of the Property Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (NSW), restricted the price range a real estate agent could quote the value of a property for; with a 10% difference in how they market a property. This restriction on the powers of real estate agents better protected the rights of those seeking shelter by preventing them from being misled on the value of a property and losing both time and money in it’s pursuit. These introduction of the Property Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (NSW), as well as the reforms to it have greatly protected the rights of those seeking to purchase property by restricting the way in which they can be exploited for profit of both the seller and the real estate agent. Legal and non-legal responses AGED CARE FACILITIES Legal responses have protected those seeking shelter in aged care facilities to a great extent. Elderly people are some of the most vulnerable people within the Australian population and the high demand for aged care facilities in conjunction with their low supply, means many seeking shelter in a retirement village are exploited and taken advantage of. With the nation expected to have 50% more people 55+ by 2036, there is a substantial need for better protection of those seeking shelter in these facilities. The aged care act 1997 is the overarching piece of legislation that covers government funded aged care and outlines rules for funding and regulation. Each year, a report on the operation of this act is reported on to the Australian parliament as an introduced policy after the social backlash regarding many scandals within aged care facilities around 2017. The Kathryn Greiner (the Greiner report), was catalytic for the 2018 amendment of the amalgamation and reform of The Retirement Villages Act 1999 (NSW) and the Retirement Villages Regulation 2017 (NSW) into the Retirement Villages Amendment Act 2018 (NSW), which took on board the 17 recommendations of the report, including; a 90 day settling in period for the residents. The 17 recommendations incorporated into the law all cumulatively better protected the rights of those elderly people seeking shelter and enforces these reformed rights, whereby this legal response also provides for various penalties to apply to the act where these changes are not complied with, ranging from $2,200 to $22,000 for each offense. Similarly, the Quakers hill mass murder in an aged care faciltiy (2011) was catalytical for a colonial inquest held in 2014. This found a lack of fire sprinklers, meaning the rights of vulnerable elderly people seeking shelter in these facilities were insufficiently protected and thus the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (fire sprinklers) Regulation Act 2014 (NSW) was introduced to mandate the installment of emergency fire sprinklers in aged care facilities. This legal response upheld the international right to an “adequate standard of living and health” and protects vulnerable elderly people seeking shelter in aged care facilities by outlining standards and expectations that those providing the shelter must meet. Thus, the law protects elderly people seeking aged care shelter to a great, however with 40% of aged care residents in these facilities having experienced abuse (ABC, 2020) more is needed to more extensively protect those seeking shelter. AGED CARE FACILITIES (non-legal) Non-legal responses have worked with legal responses to a large significant extent in regard to protecting those seeking shelter in aged care facilities. The Senior rights Service (1986) is an NGO that is dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights of older people, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. They provide free and confidential telephone advice, aged care advocacy and support, legal advice and rights-based education forums to seniors across NSW. This NGO improves the ease of access in which vulnerable elderly people can access their laws and ensure their rights are being upheld, complimenting the legal responses to a great extent. The Senior Rights service has been highly accessed, with “over 22,000 people reached through our face-to-face community education efforts and also 51,000+ hits to our website in the 2014/15 fiscal year”. The effectiveness of this non-legal response can be seen in the case of Micheal, where the Senior Rights Service advocated for Micheal to be able to maintain relationships, which the aged care facility disallowed him from continuing. As a result the Senior Rights Service highlighted that there was no legal order preventing him from attending a local men's shed to visit his friends and thus protected Micheal as a vulnerable person from being taken advantage of. This case is just one of the 7,016 cases that the Senior Rights Service has provided advocacy in and one of the 2,987 cases of legal support they have provided to elderly people from the 2019-2020 period. It Highlights how non-legal responses have worked with legal responses to a great extent in order to protect those seeking shelter in aged care facilities. With 100% customer satisfaction of their legal education and 94% customer satisfaction for their advocacy services, it is objectively clear that this non-legal response has complemented legal responses to a great extent and is significantly effective in protecting and empowering those seeking shelter in aged care facilities. TENANTS RIGHTS/ RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT Legal responses have protected tenants seeking shelter to a significant extent.Changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) came as a result of a statutory review from 2015-16, which provided a tabled report to parliament in 2016, proposing 27 recommendations. This led to the introduction of the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Review) Act 2018, which introduced a multitude of improvements, implementing a majority of the recommendations. This legal response reduced discretion within the previous act, particularly in relation to “fit for habitation”, by defining this through the introduction of seven minimum standards, some of which include; the rental property being structurally sound and having adequate ventilation. The amendment act reduced the landlord’s discretion in the adequacy of a rental property for a tenant and as a result, safeguards the right of those seeking rental shelter, by guaranteeing them a range of minimum standards to adequate shelter. This legal response was largely needed after cases such as the Chloe Leeds case, where the property she was renting was “green with moss”, however when she moved out, the landlord took her to court for breaking the contract and the judge ruled she had to pay the remaining 6 months fees plus costs. This case examples the way that tenants rights were underprotected and highlights the need for legal responses to amend residential tenancies act. During 2019, the Residential Tenancies Regulation was developed to allow the reform to take effect, implement the recommendations and replace the current legislation. One of these changes included domestic violence provisions to protect those seeking rental shelter who are victim to domestic abuses. This allows the tenant to end a tenancy immediately if themselves or their child/dependant is in a domestic violence situation, without being penalised. If an AVO is granted that excludes a co-tenant (perpetrator) from accessing the property, the co-tenants’ tenancy will automatically end and the tenancy will simply be transferred to the victim. Otherwise, the victim can terminate their tenancy immediately in cases of domestic violence without penalty and are also excluded from liability of property damage caused by the perpetrator. The multitude of options victims of domestic violence seeking rental shelter are provided, recognises the intricate nature of domestic violence and protects the safety of those seeking rental shelter where the urgency of the situation and the safety of the victim is recognised and prioritised over tenancy contract details. Thus overall, legal response to protect the rights of those seeking shelter in relation to rental properties has been done to a significant extent. TENANTS RIGHTS/ RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT (non-legal) Non-legal responses have complimented legal responses and protected the rights of tenants to a large extent. The Tenants Union NSW is an NGO Which is the main resourcing body for Tenants Advice and Advocacy Services (TAASs) and is a community legal centre specialising in NSW residential tenancies law. They are based under the (Adoption of National Law) Act 2012 (NSW) and mostly advocate for the rights of tenants, particularly those “economically and socially disadvantaged”. They also work for reform of laws and for policies to make sure renters have more stable, liveable and affordable homes from issues ranging from affordability, coronavirus to bonds. They are an easily accessible platform of legal advice and guidance for tenants, with over 26,000 people got in touch with a local Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service and received nearly 100,000 sessions of assistance (from 2019-2020). (LinkedIn, 2021). They also participated in law reform campaigns resulting in the passing of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987, the Residential Parks Act 1998 and, more recently, the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 and Boarding Houses Act 2012, highlighting their high level of advocacy and involvement in tenancy rights. They’re advocacy for tenant rights can be seen to a great extent in, SMH “Tenants Union calls to ban no pets clause” a woman was turned down from every apartment because she was a pet owner; this is under an unfair clause in the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). The Tenants Union of NSW (TUNSW) has now asked for a ban on clauses prohibiting pets in lease agreements as part of their submission to Fair Trading NSW’s tenancy review discussion paper. Thus, exemplifying the way that legal and non-legal responses work together coherently to protect the rights of tenants to a large extent.
