The statement by Democrat MLA Roslyn Dundas about the funding the Rental Bonds Board makes alarming reading. Before the board was established bonds were kept by real-estate agents in trust accounts or by landlords themselves. It was an unsatisfactory arrangement. After all, it was tenants’ money and the interest on it should be used in the tenants’ interests. Moreover, there were instances of abuse by landlords. The idea behind the board is a good one. Landlords are required to lodge all bonds with it. The board pays bonds back to either tenant or landlord applicants after giving the other party notice and ensuring there is no dispute. Disputes are sorted out between the parties or failing that by the Residential Tenancy Tribunal. The board provides information and help top landlords and tenants. The board is funded by the interest on bond money.
Ms Dundas says that $16.6 million in bonds was in the fund at June 30, 2001. Bonds had earned $1.3 million in 2000-01. Of that only $144,000 went to the Tenants’ Advice Service. $600,000 went to the board’s administrative costs and $370,000 went to the Residential Tenancy Tribunal. A further $176,000 was collected by the tribunal in user-pays fees. This left about $380,000 unaccounted for – presumably the money has gone into government coffers. It warrants an investigation.
The relationship between landlord and tenant is often an unequal one. The tenants are more often less versed in legal and administrative matters, less well aware of their rights; often younger, less experienced, less educated and usually poorer. The law and the administration should address this. To a large extent this is being done. The Residential Tenancy Act gives tenants a range of rights far in excess of the average commercial lease. That is how it should be. We are dealing with tenants’ homes and there is a public interest to help against homelessness. Often there are children involved.
But having rights is no use unless tenants know about them and can enforce them. Under ACT law, rent can only be increased once a year; substantial notice must be given of rent rises; there are appeal rights; landlords’ rights of eviction are severely limited.
That tenants are in the weaker position is exemplified by the fact that the Government and the Rental Bonds Board – the people who are supposed to be looking after tenants — between them have spirited $380,000 in tenants’ money.
The money should be repaid. The simplest and best way would be to pay the tenants interest. Failing that user fees at the tribunal could be cut and information services should be beefed up. But Ms Dundas idea that the money be used for an energy-efficiency rating scheme for leased dwellings is preposterous. There is enough waste in the EER scheme with for-sale houses. Tenants’ money should not be squandered on wasteful ideology.