Proposed Rooming House Regulations
Submission
Municipal Association of Victoria
October 2011
6
© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2011.
The Municipal Association of Victoria is the owner of the copyright in the publication MAV Submission:
Proposed Rooming House Regulations.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means
without the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of Victoria.
All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should be addressed
to Rosemary Hancock on 9667 5520 or email rhancock@mav.asn.au. October 2011
The MAV can provide this publication in an alternative format upon request, including large print,
Braille and audio.
“MAV Submission: Proposed Rooming House Regulations” has been prepared by the Municipal
Association of Victoria (MAV) in response to the Regulatory Impact Statement released by the State
Government in respect of the proposed Residential Tenancies (Rooming House Standards)
Regulations.
The MAV is the statutory peak body for local government in Victoria, representing all 79 municipalities.
The MAV would also like to acknowledge the contribution of those who provided their comments and
advice during this project.
While this paper aims to broadly reflect the views of local government in Victoria, it does not purport to
reflect the exact views of individual councils.
1
MAV Submission: Proposed Rooming House Regulations
Table of Contents
1
Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 3
2
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Role of local government ....................................................................................... 5
2.2 Relevant legislation................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Changing profile of rooming houses....................................................................... 7
3
MAV comments on the proposed regulations ............................................................ 8
3.1 Number and content of the proposed regulations .................................................. 8
3.2 Introducing another regulator monitoring physical premises .................................. 8
3.3 Misconceptions about the current regulatory framework ...................................... 10
3.4 Introduction/transition issues ............................................................................... 10
4
Conclusions / Findings ............................................................................................ 10
5
Further information.................................................................................................. 10
2
MAV Submission: Proposed Rooming House Regulations
1
Executive Summary
The MAV is pleased to provide a submission to the Regulatory Impact Statement on the proposed
Residential Tenancies (Rooming House Standards) Regulations 2011.
Rooming houses have a special role in providing housing for vulnerable people where there is often
no other housing option available to them. Any actions that impact on their viability will have
profound consequences for the homelessness services system, which in turn will impact
disproportionately on low income vulnerable people. As a result, introduction of new standards for
rooming houses requires careful consideration of the impact on their supply.
In summary, our comments about the proposed regulations are:
3

The proposed new standards for rooming houses will go some way to reducing the potential
for loss of life, injury and trauma as a result of inadequate safety and security in rooming
houses, and increase basic amenity of accommodation for residents.

In accepting the introduction of eleven new standards, the MAV is guided by the Victorian
Government’s analysis of the implications of their introduction, and that it has reached its
recommendations following detailed liaison with councils whose municipalities include high
numbers of rooming houses and the private rooming house association Registered
Accommodation Association of Victoria (RAAV). It notes that one inner metropolitan council,
however, is concerned about the impact of supply and is recommending fewer standards
being introduced.

In relation to the content of the standards, the MAV urges the Victorian Government to
consider the responses from individual councils which have raised specific issues about
them. These cover a range of matters including the need for definitions to be aimed at the
outcomes being sought, and care needing to be taken to ensure that some of the prescriptive
items (such as the number of stove burners required) are relevant. It would not be desirable
to have standards which result in premises being non-compliant over issues that are not
significant to the standard of the overall accommodation being provided.

To ensure the new standards do not prove unduly onerous and/or they result in driving down
the supply of rooming houses to a significant extent, the MAV suggests that further work is
undertaken with the existing rooming house sector to manage transition to the new
standards. The new standards should also be reviewed two years after their introduction to
assess the effect of the new standards on supply.

The MAV is not convinced, however, that the right regulatory framework is being proposed to
implement the new standards.

In particular, the MAV’s concerns about the proposed enforcement regime is that it will:
o
further complicate enforcement of rooming house standards as a result of an
additional agency, Consumer Affairs Victoria, being involved in regulating the physical
standards of premises, and that this will increase the risk of fewer proprietors being
willing to be involved in operating rooming houses.
o
increase inconsistency of treatment of different standards premises need to comply
with. Some standards (such as those proposed in the RIS) will not need any permit
or attract a fee to cover regulatory oversight, some standards (such as those under
MAV Submission: Proposed Rooming House Regulations
the building and public legislation) require permits, registration and fees. This is
despite the fact that many of the standards may be equally important to the health
and safety of residents.
o
continue, and most likely exacerbate, misconceptions that ‘registration’ of rooming
houses by councils means more than it actually is, namely, it only relates to the
premises (not the proprietor) complying with the disease control provisions contained
in public health regulations.
The MAV acknowledges that there are no clear-cut solutions to addressing these issues, short of
implementing special rooming house provisions which unite the strands contained in various
legislative instruments in one place. This may or not be desirable, however, given that there are a
number of other types of low-cost accommodation, for example caravan park accommodation, which
are also used by low income people seeking housing.
We suggest that there are alternative ways for these proposed standards to be introduced so that
they minimise complexity for proprietors and local government. These include the Victorian
Government:
1.
Exploring the option of building and environmental health officers being authorised under the
Residential Tenancies Act to inspect and enforce the new standards relating to physical
premises. Consideration could also be given to some of the new standards being included in
the building regulations.
Note: this option would require funding by the Victorian Government unless separate fees
were able to be charged by councils. Funding arrangements could be arranged along the
lines of the tobacco service agreements the Department of Health has with councils whereby
authorised officers undertake activities identified as priorities. Councils would need to be
involved in the development of the detail.
2.
Introducing licensing of proprietors to address the current gap in the regulatory system which
has no mechanism relating to proprietors of rooming house accommodation. Licensing
would go some way to setting expectations for operators that regulatory standards need to
be known and complied with. It would also assist councils to better identify and prosecute
proprietors hiding behind complex corporate ownership and operating structures. Licensing
of operators was one of the recommendations arising from the Taskforce which met in 2009.
Linking the proposed licensing/registration system to a state-wide database so that a
proprietor’s licence can be revoked if there is non-compliance with the other legislative
requirements should also be considered. This would provide a mechanism to link the
current fragmented regulatory system by requiring a licence to be issued before other
permits issued by councils can be granted.
4
3.
Developing an MOU between CAV and local government to reduce duplication and increase
coordination between agencies.
4.
Exploring alternatives to statutory enforcement in the form of incentive grants and subsidies
that could be used to leverage compliance and improve safety and amenity for residents.
5.
Ensuring clear communication materials are available for rooming house proprietors to assist
them understand the standards they are expected to meet and which regulator has
responsibility for which standards.
MAV Submission: Proposed Rooming House Regulations
2 Introduction
The MAV is the statutory peak body for local government in Victoria, representing all 79
municipalities. While this submission aims to provide a broad local government
perspective, we acknowledge that a number of individual councils will have particular
views and expertise to provide in response to the proposed Residential Tenancies
(Rooming House Standards) Regulations 2011.
Currently there is a diversity of local government involvement in the regulation of rooming
houses across the state, mainly because rooming houses are not located evenly across
the state, with over 70% of registered rooming houses located within ten Melbourne
municipalities. (RIS, p18).
The spectrum of council involvement ranges from those councils with an acute interest in
the outcome of the proposed regulations and ongoing regulatory framework because of
the rapid rise of rooming house accommodation in their municipalities and/or lack of
availability of affordable housing options, and those councils for whom rooming house
regulation is a low priority because of the low numbers of rooming houses and low level of
problems arising from those that are operating.
2.1
Role of local government
Councils in Victoria play an important role in respect of regulating rooming houses,
including:
5

Registering premises which are prescribed accommodation under the Public
Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2009 which meet standards relating to
overcrowding, sanitary and cleanliness. Registrations are annual, no inspections
are mandated, although many councils as a matter of good practice undertake
inspections in relation to renewal of registration. Councils also have to maintain a
register of prescribed accommodation, including specified details of proprietors

Issuing planning permits under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 where
these are required

Issuing building and occupancy permits under the Building Act 1993 and Building
Regulations 2006 to ensure the building is habitable and structurally sound

Responding to complaints through use of the nuisance provisions in the Public
Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 where there is a possible risk to public health

Issuing Improvement and Prohibition notices under the Public Health and
Wellbeing Act 2008

Refusing or cancelling registration if the regulatory requirements in the Public
Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2009 are not met.
MAV Submission: Proposed Rooming House Regulations
2.2
Relevant legislation
The legislation relevant to council activities includes:





Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008
Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2009
Building Act 1993
Building Regulations 2006
Planning and Environment Act 1987.
These legislative instruments provide heads of power for councils to act, noting that the
public health and building Acts and regulations are designed for fundamentally different
purposes and require within council different competencies and expertise. Many building
permits are granted by private building surveyors, rather than inspectors employed directly
by councils.
The legislative instruments used by councils also interface with the roles and
responsibilities of other government agencies roles. For example, Consumer Affairs
Victoria plays a role supporting tenants’ rights under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997,
the Metropolitan Fire Brigade plays a role in fire prevention and Energy Safe Victoria has
a role in providing advice about standards for electrical and gas fittings. The Office of
Housing in the Department of Human Services has an interest in the availability of low
cost housing options for people who would otherwise be seeking housing assistance, and
it currently coordinates the collection of data from councils about rooming houses they
register.
In recent years there has been an increasing trend for councils to coordinate their various
regulatory functions relating to rooming houses. This approach has also been
recommended by the Victorian Coroner following an inquiry into the deaths of two people
as a result of a fire at a rooming house in Brunswick in 2004.
Since 2009, Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) has employed additional inspectors to
investigate matters related to the Residential Tenancies Act and assist councils in
identifying unregistered rooming houses. There has been significant cooperation between
councils and CAV in those municipalities where the number of rooming houses has been
significant.
6
MAV Submission: Proposed Rooming House Regulations
2.3
Changing profile of rooming houses
The RIS identifies (corroborated by councils) that there is a growing trend towards smaller
rooming houses, particularly in locations favoured by students. In many cases suburban
homes with multiple bedrooms are being used to generate profits by owners/operators
lawfully (or unlawfully) modifying them to accommodate larger numbers of people. In
October 2010 there were 839 registered rooming houses across Victoria, with over 1,072
bedrooms. This is an increase from just 230 properties recorded at June 2009. (RIS,
p18).
The unique nature of rooming house living arrangements compared to other forms of
residential tenancy has led to increased need for regulatory intervention. For example
residents occupy a bedroom as their main residence, they often have no connection to
other residents and do not decide who shares their premise. Landlords retain a level of
access and control over the property in ways that other landlords in traditional rental
accommodation do not.
Rooming houses often accommodate large numbers of people in the same building.
Bedrooms have locks (with consequent implications for fire safety), many bedrooms are
used for cooking and often have multiple electrical items, again increasing fire and
electrical safety risks. The rooming house resident profile often includes people with
mental illness or who are international students where distrust of authorities can often
result in lack complaints or voicing of dissent to the landlord.
In some cases rooming houses are significant businesses with significant profits involved.
For example in the case of the rooming house in Brunswick which had the fire in which
two people died, that business leased some 60-70 homes and accommodated some 200300 people.
There are many examples of rooming house proprietors who comply with their regulatory
obligations. The Registered Accommodation Association of Victoria (RAAV) which
represents owners of private rooming houses and other registered accommodation in
Victoria also advocates for improved standards and ethical practices amongst rooming
house owners.
7
MAV Submission: Proposed Rooming House Regulations
3 MAV comments on the proposed regulations
The MAV wishes to comment on a number of aspects of the proposed regulations. These
are set out below.
3.1
Number and content of the proposed regulations
The MAV is guided by the State Government’s analysis of the implications of introducing
eleven new standards, and the flow-on effects for the number of rooming houses. The
MAV acknowledges that a considerable level of analysis about the rooming house sector
has been undertaken, and that the State Government has liaised with councils and private
rooming house association to determine the appropriate level of regulation.
The MAV encourages the State Government to note the responses of individual councils
in respect of the specific details of the proposed standards.
Issues raised by councils include whether the detail is too prescriptive and should be more
outcome based. For example, some of the issues councils have alerted the MAV to
include:
3.2

it is not sufficient to just outline that external light fittings are required, but that the
outcome that is being sought is that they are in working order

the extent of laundry facilities required to be provided should bear some relevance
to the numbers of people who need to use them

the specificity of measurements for some of the kitchen requirements need to
consider their relevance if non-compliance is to be deemed and this has
consequences for other permits not being granted (eg, a stove only has seven
burners not the eight specified in the standard)

keyless privacy latches on all bathroom and toilet doors does not allow for houses
which have self-contained bathrooms and toilets

questions about whether just one double power outlet is sufficient when it is
reported that tenants have cooking facilities, televisions, electric heaters and
lamps all requiring electricity in their rooms

tenants need to be able to open windows for fresh air, therefore keys to window
locks need to be provided.
Introducing another regulator monitoring physical premises
Introduction of another agency to monitor the physical state of rooming houses premises
is problematic because it introduces another level of inspection additional to those already
in place through building and public health inspectors located in local government and fire
safety inspections undertaken by the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. Although Consumer
Affairs Victoria inspectors currently conduct inspections with regard to tenancy matters, its
officers do not currently have a direct regulatory role in enforcing standards which relate to
the physical state of the premises.
8
MAV Submission: Proposed Rooming House Regulations
This means the proposed standards will result in an increasing number of separate
assessments and investigations with which rooming house operators have to comply.
Given that councils actively involved in rooming house regulation are increasingly
adopting the practice of not granting registration under the Public Health and Wellbeing
Regulations until other permits have been issued, councils will face additional delays if
they have to wait on decision-making within Consumer Affairs in relation to the proposed
standards.
The situation could also arise where the council has legitimately registered a rooming
house based on the limited requirements of the Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations,
without rooming house operators needing to meet the proposed new requirements.
The MAV acknowledges that there are limitations to introducing amenity-type standards
into the existing building or public health regulations, given that these regulations exist for
purposes unrelated to amenity. However as some of the proposed regulations are similar
to building requirements, such as fire safety devices, door locks and electrical fittings,
inserting some of the standards into building regulations warrant further exploration.
Alternatively, the proposed standards could continue to be included under the Residential
Tenancies Act 1997, with provisions inserted which enable council officers being
authorised to enforce them in addition to officers authorised by the Victorian Government.
For example building officers enforcing standards relating to the structure of the building,
such as the fire safety standards, environmental health officers enforcing the standards
more related to sanitation such as laundry and kitchen facilities.
Participation of council officers in this role should be at the discretion of the council. This
option would also require funding to be provided to councils to take on this role, given that
the regulations do not provide for fees to be charged to proprietors for permits. Without
external funding, councils would need to increase fees on rooming house operators, which
may in turn be passed on to tenants, with subsequent impacts on rents and affordability.
Whichever option is considered, there would need to be a clear line of differentiation
between ‘tenancy’ issues and ‘building structure’ issues in the way these are enforced. It
is not feasible for councils to be involved in lengthy tenancy matters when Consumer
Affairs Victoria already has expertise in these matters. Any authorisations for council
officers that might be enabled through the Residential Tenancies Act should be restricted
just to those sections covering the particular standards.
The MAV welcomes the proposal in the RIS for guidelines to be developed by Consumer
Affairs Victoria to provide a resource aimed at achieving a consistent approach to
enforcement of standards. As the guidelines would be applicable across the state, all
councils should be involved in their development, not just those most affected.
Development of a Memorandum of Understanding between Consumer Affairs Victoria and
councils about who will deal with what issues and what will be referred between agencies
would assist better coordination across regulatory functions.
9
MAV Submission: Proposed Rooming House Regulations
3.3
Misconceptions about the current regulatory framework
The MAV has observed an increasing tendency for many proprietors, media and others
(including many in government as well) not directly involved in regulating rooming houses
to have a misconception about exactly what rooming house “registration” means. Many
appear to presume it means more than it actually is.
In fact all that has occurred in the granting of registration by a council is that the premises
has met the disease control provisions of the public health regulations. Registration is not
required to consider any issues relating to the proprietor, other than the contact details
contained in the public health regulations. Council officers report that these are relatively
straightforward and clear-cut to enforce, and that there is often no statutory reason to
withhold registration, even if standards required in other legislation have not been met.
This tendency to assume more from the granting of registration is problematic from a local
government perspective, because it assumes councils have a duty of care which is not
statutorily required of them. While this problem is not directly related to the proposed
implementation of the new standards, it highlights a gap which needs to be addressed
before further new standards are introduced.
Introduction of a state-wide licensing/registration system would mitigate this problem,
because it would deal with issues which many assume have been dealt with in the
registration process, namely the probity of the proprietor running the rooming house.
Access to a state-wide database, or acceptance of a licence prior to issuing of building or
public health permits would strengthen the regulatory environment and provide greater
options for a more self-regulated approach to rooming house standards.
3.4
Introduction/transition issues
When these regulations are introduced, there will automatically be a requirement for all
rooming houses to be inspected to ensure they meet the new standards. This will
generate a significant workload. The MAV suggests that if its recommendations are
endorsed to involve council officers with the support of funding, that introduction of the
new standards could be staged to when annual registrations are being renewed.
4 Conclusions / Findings
Councils and State Government agencies have ongoing shared roles in improving the
quality of rooming house standards. The MAV encourages the Victorian Government to
continue to support measures which better integrate the regulatory system, while
simplifying them as much as possible to reduce unnecessary and burdensome for
proprietors and council enforcement officers. The availability of low cost housing options
continues to be an important issue for all communities.
5 Further information
Please contact:
10
Rosemary Hancock
Policy Adviser
Municipal Association of Victoria
Email: rhancock@mav.asn.au
MAV Submission: Proposed Rooming House Regulations