2012/05: Should tenants have the right to keep pets on rental properties in Australia?
What they said...
Pet ownership provides companionship, gives immense pleasure and reduces stress levels...'
The Australian Companion Animal Council
'Badly behaved pets can cause tremendous damage to your property and garden; especially if pets are younger or left unsupervised'
Sydney Real Estate Agents, G.K. Hursts
The issue at a glance
On April 4, 2012, independent MP, Ms Clover Moore, unsuccessfully attempted to have established in the New South Wales Parliament a select committee to inquire into companion animal welfare with the view to improving these animals' wellbeing. Among the areas Ms Moore wants investigated are 'the number and cause of companion animals arriving in NSW shelters and pounds each year and their outcome, such as whether they get re-homed, re-united or euthanized'. She also wants to have investigated 'the impact of pet bans in accommodation including apartments, strata, retirement villages, and rental properties'. Ms Moore also attempted in 2011 to have a similar committee established, again without success.
Ms Moore's efforts represent part of a more general move being made by a number of veterinarians and others, including the group Lawyers for Companion Animals, to have laws changed in all Australian states to provide greater protection for Australian domestic animals.
Background
In Australia, more than two thirds of households own pets. Australia has the highest incidence of pet ownership per household of any country in the world. However, finding pet friendly rental accommodation can be difficult.
Across the country, residential tenancy agreements either do not mention keeping pets or state that written consent is required from the landlord before pets are allowed in rental properties. Despite some apparent shift in attitude among real estate agents, a majority of landlords do not allow tenants to have pets. The situation appears to be particularly acute in Queensland which has a high annual intake of new residents from other states and thus a large rental market with a proportionately large number of surrendered pets, a high percentage of which are put down.
The RSPCA manages about 160,000 animals Australia-wide each year, and the charity's ACT chief, Michael Linke, claims shelters are crowed because changing living situations mean people can no longer stay with their pets. Mr Linke has said pet owners struggle trying to rent private and single-dwelling houses the most. He has stated, 'We've been calling on the Real Estate Institute and private land-holders to loosen the ties a bit and be more forthcoming in allowing people with pets to find accommodation, because we're finding a lot of people are surrendering animals to move into free-standing houses.'
In June 2011 a private law firm, Lawyers for Companion Animals, was established in NSW. The primary purpose of this firm is to make submissions to government and government agencies, provide pro-bono information and, to a lesser extent, advice and advocacy, on companion Animal Law and companion Animal Law related issues. It is the only law firm in Australia to focus exclusively in the practice of Animal Law for companion animals. One of their areas of concern is providing information to assist those threatened with eviction due to the keeping of a pet.
Internet sources
In June 2011 a private law firm, Lawyers for Companion Animals, was established in NSW. The primary purpose of this firm is to make submissions to government and government agencies, provide pro-bono information and, to a lesser extent, advice and advocacy, on companion Animal Law and companion Animal Law related issues.
The Lawyers for Companion Animals Internet site can be found at http://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/
On October 24, 2011, The Sydney Morning Herald published a news item titled, 'Councils take stock of bond between tenants and pets'. The item details the Willoughby Council's Companion Animal Advisory Committee's recommendation that pet agreements between landlords and tenants and pet insurance policies and a pet bond be introduced through the area. The full text of the article can be found at http://news.domain.com.au/domain/real-estate-news/councils-take-stock-of-bond-between-tenants-and-pets-20111024-1mf2a.html
On January 11, 2012, The Sydney Morning Herald published a background piece by Dan Nancarrow titled, 'Vet pleads for landlords to allow pets'. The piece presents a range of views on the issue. The full text can be accessed at http://news.domain.com.au/domain/real-estate-news/vet-pleads-for-landlords-to-allow-pets-20120111-1pv14.html
The Real Estate Institute of Western Australia produces the publication Reiwaviews, its news and opinion site. On February 2, 2012, it published a background piece by David Airey, outlining the difficulty tenants often had renting with pets and suggesting that the situation was changing.
The full text of this article can be found at http://reiwaviews.com.au/tag/pets/
On February 3, 2012, First National Real Estate posted an opinion piece advising property investors that tenants with pets warranted a fresh eye as recent research suggests they may be very good renters.
The full text of this article can be found at http://firstnationalnews.com/category/opinion/
On February 8, 2012, The Courier Mail published a news report titled, 'Rentals tough on pet owners'. The report details the number of animals surrendered to animal refuges because their owners cannot find pet-friendly accommodation.
The full text of this report can be found at http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/west/rentals-tough-on-pet-owners/story-fn8m0u4y-1226264487014
On February 11, 2012, a news report in The Cairns Post gave details of a Redlynch strata title community which have deliberately set up as a pet-friendly complex. The body corporate chairman, Deborah Duffy, said, 'A lot of people are leaving houses to move into units and don't want to give up their pets.'
The full text of the article can be found at http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2012/02/11/205005_local-news.html
On February 12, 2012,the Gympie Times ran an opinion piece titled 'Cruel Landlords cast pets aside'. The full text of the piece can be found at http://www.gympietimes.com.au/story/2012/02/18/cruel-landlords-cast-pets-aside/
On February 22, The Courier Mail ran an opinion piece suggesting the introduction of a pet bond into the Queensland Tenancy Act could make landlords more willing to accept tenants with companion animals.
The full text of the article can be found at http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/west/bond-could-give-pet-owners-a-hand-in-rental-market/story-fn8m0u4y-1226277068114
On February 25, 2012, The Townsville Bulletin carried a background piece titled, 'How to House the Fur Family'.
The piece outlines the growing demand in Queensland for rental accommodation that allows pets.
The full text of the article can be found at http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2012/02/25/308661_real_estate.html
On March 6, 2012, The Courier Mail reported on a survey among 300 Doug Disher Real Estate tenants which indicated that almost three-quarters would be prepared to pay a pet bond.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/west/renters-favour-option-of-pet-bond/story-fn8m0u4y-1226290283575
On April 4, 2012, independent MP, Ms Clover Moore, unsuccessfully attempted to have established in the New South Wales Parliament a select committee to inquire into companion animal welfare with the view to improving these animals' wellbeing. Among the areas Ms Moore wants investigated is 'the impact of pet bans in accommodation including apartments, strata, retirement villages, and rental properties'.
The full text of Ms Moore's motion can be found at http://companionanimalnews.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/nsw-parliament-clover-moore-motion-re-companion-animal-welfare-select-committee-inquiry-4th-april-2012/
The Australian Companion Animal Council has produced a brochure giving advice to landlords on dealing with tenants with pets. The full text of this brochure can be found at http://www.acac.org.au/pdf/renting_landlordguide.pdf
The Australian Companion Animal Council has produced a brochure giving advice to tenants on keeping pets in rental accommodation. The full text of this brochure can be found http://www.acac.org.au/pdf/renting_tenantguide.pdf
The Petcare Information and Advisory Service (PIAS) has set up an Internet site, Pets in the City, to help city-dwellers make informed decisions about dog and cat ownership. The site provides a wealth of information on social trends, strata and general tenancy restrictions and answers to practical questions regarding breed selection and pet management,
It can be accessed at http://www.petsinthecity.net.au/
The New South Wales Young Lawyers Animal Rights Committee has supplied an information brochure on keeping pets in strata schemes. The full text of this brochure can be found at http://www.lawsociety.com.au/idc/groups/public/documents/internetyounglawyers/027213.pdf
Arguments in favour of tenants being able to keep pets
1. Pet ownership has health and other benefits
The Australian Companion Animal Council (ACAC) has stated, 'Companion animals deliver proven physical, psychological and health benefits for pet owners and have important benefits for society as a whole. Modern lifestyles can create loneliness, isolation and a sense of vulnerability. Pet ownership provides companionship, gives immense pleasure and reduces stress levels...'
It has been suggested that people living in rental accommodation should not be denied these benefits. It has further been suggested that people living in rental accommodation may be more likely to suffer from isolation and so be in particular need of the benefits that pet ownership can give. The elderly form a large sub-set of those in rental accommodation and they are a special group that can benefit from pet ownership given their greater likelihood of reduced social contact. Demographer Bernard Salt has stated, 'Companion animals will be important to older single people who may be widowed or separated.'
It has further been shown that people living in rented accommodation are statistically more likely to have a lower health status than those living in self-owned premises. It would therefore seem inappropriate that tenants be denied the health benefits that can come as a result of pet ownership.
The ACAC has also noted that pet ownership has special benefits for children. The ACAC has stated, 'Growing up with a dog assists in the social development of children by improving social skills and self-esteem. Children can learn responsibility, empathy and respect by living with and caring for a dog.'
In 2006, 31.6 per cent of children in New South Wales lived in rented accommodation. Children living in rented accommodation are also likely to have shorter periods of tenure than those living in resident-owned housing. More frequent moves create a greater likelihood of social dislocation and further increase the social value of pet ownership.
The ACAC has stated, 'Dogs ... help to build social networks within the community, creating opportunities for greater social interaction. A shared interest in dogs brings together people from all walks of life. Dogs can help to initiate conversations between strangers in public places, or be the basis more structured social activities such as dog showing and dog obedience classes.' These are benefits for which those living in rented accommodation are likely to have a particular need.
2. Most Australian households have a pet
The Australian Veterinary Association estimates 'The pet population of Australia to be around 38.2 million, this includes 3.75 million dogs, while the cat population was 2.43 million. The remainder is made up of fish, birds and other pets (including rabbits, guinea pigs, and other small animals)... It is estimated that around 63 per cent of Australian households own some type of pet.' The Internet site of RSPCA Victoria notes, 'Australia has one of the highest pet ownership rates in the world.'
According to The Investors Club, 12 million Australian households are associated with pets, with 91 per cent of pet owners reporting they feel "very close" to their pet.
RSPCA Victoria states that 'Despite this broad acceptance of pets as part of our daily life, many landlords don't accept pets as part of their tenants' families. Sadly, many landlords declare a blanket "no pets" policy...'
RSPCA Victoria has further stated, 'This [is] discrimination against pet owners in the rental market [which] causes owners and their animals great distress as they try and find a new home.'
Not only representatives of animal organisations have seen this 'no pets' stance as discriminatory against pet owners who do not also own their own homes. Queensland principal Luke Carter, of Amber Werchon Property, has stated, 'It is unreasonable to think tenants are not going to keep pets because pets are a part of everyone's life.'
3. Many people seeking rental accommodation have a pre-existing pet they may have to surrender
It has been noted that with pet ownership being widespread, many people seeking rental accommodation have a pre-existing pet and if unable to find a pet-friendly property are faced with the awkward choice of having to break the terms of their lease or get rid of their pet. Breaking the terms of a lease is not generally advised as the tenant could be taken before the Tenancy Tribunal. Real Estate agents, Ray Whites, have stated, 'It's not a good plan for a tenant to have a pet in a rental property without approval, as if the animal is discovered, this will most likely result in a notice to remedy breach being issued. If the pet is not removed or an agreement reached, both parties will end up in the tribunal...'
It has been claimed that thousands of loved animals are being surrendered each year in Queensland alone as a tight rental market squeezes out pet owners. RSPCA spokesperson, Michael Beatty, indicated that there were 2400 animals handed over to the RSPCA's Fairfield shelter last year and at least half were from owners unable to secure pet-friendly rental accommodation. Mr Beatty stated, 'We have enough problems with animals people don't want, let alone the pets that people do want but can't find a [rental] solution.'
Animal Aid General Manager, Nell Thompson, has stated, 'Too many pets are being surrendered because of the inability to find suitable pet friendly accommodation...
It is heartbreaking to see pet owners emotionally distraught when they have to surrender their pets to Animal Aid, simply because they cannot find pet friendly accommodation.'
4 Paws Animal Refuge president, Julie Penlington, has said the Gold Coast refuge receives up to four phone calls a week from pet owners having to surrender their animals because of strict rental agreements.
Ms Penlington stated, 'We have a great influx of people moving to the Sunshine Coast these days and when they arrive it is almost impossible for them to find accommodation that allows them to have pets. We have a bigger number of un-pet-friendly rental properties than anywhere I have heard of. It is disgraceful...
Landlords need to be a lot more lenient to people who are responsible pet owners."
The situation is similar in other states. According to an article published in The Domain section of The Sydney Morning Herald on January 11, 2012, the RSPCA claims that 30 per cent of pets surrendered to the organisation are from owners who cannot find adequate accommodation.
4. A landlord's property rights can be protected when renting to a tenant with a pet
It has been claimed that a landlord's rights can be protected when renting to tenants with pets and that the bond should cover the cost of repairing any harm to a property that pets might cause.
Brisbane vet, Michael O'Donoghue, who has been part of a campaign to encourage landlords to be more accepting of tenants with pets, has stated, 'Generally a normal bond should cover any sort of damage a pet could possibly do, it is only going to be a scratch on the wall or replace a bit of carpet...
I find in my own personal experience that young children are more destructive to houses than pets are.'
Similar claims have been made by Tenants Union of Queensland coordinator, Penny Carr. Ms Carr has stated, 'Tenants already have an obligation to restore the property to the same condition as it was when they got it except for fair wear and tear.
If tenants don't restore their property there can be a claim against their bond and sometimes there are orders over and above the bond for tenants to compensate.'
There are those who argue that landlords could be made more willing to accept pets if an additional bond or a surcharge were imposed on tenants with pets.
Property Owners Association of Queensland president, Bruce McBryde, has stated, 'Ideally if you really want to make landlords more pet-friendly you need to change the regulations to allow them to take a bigger bond.' (In Western Australia and the Northern Territory it is already possible to charge a $100 pet bond, while $260 can now be charged in New South Wales.)
Mr McBryde also suggested routine treatment for carpeted homes. He has proposed, 'Perhaps in the legislation it could be mandated that if you have carpet you would need to have a flea treatment before you leave the property, similar to how tenants have the carpets shampooed.'
5. Allowing pet ownership can benefit landlords
It has been claimed that allowing pet-owning tenants has substantial benefits for landlords. One of these is that it significantly increases their rental market.
First National Real Estate has stated, 'As a landlord, the choice remains yours but allowing your property manager to consider applications from prospective tenant pet owners with good references expands your pool of potential customers. Anecdotal evidence also suggests tenants with pets rent for longer periods, reducing the wear and tear that occurs when people move in and out, and, lifting your annual net return.'
It has also been claimed that pet owners are often particularly responsible tenants. First National Real Estate has stated, 'Responsible pet owners typically work hard to ensure their pets don't annoy neighbours and don't do damage to their rental property.
They know that one black mark against their name means it may be much more difficult to rent in future, or worse, they may have to surrender their pet to be euthanized, if they can't find a suitable property.'
Further, it has been claimed that pet owners are often prepared to pay a higher rent in order to secure accommodation. First National Real Estate has stated, 'The research also shows that tenants with pets pay an average $25 to $35 dollars more per week for their property.'
Property manager, Suella O'Donnell, has warned landlords could cut out 90 per cent of the population if they said no to pets, which were considered part of the average family. Ms O'Donnell also claimed a pet-friendly rental accommodation had the potential to achieve a slightly higher rent, with the dedicated pet owner likely to be prepared to pay to have their pet's needs met when house hunting.
Ms O'Donnell stated, 'Anything you do to make your home more attractive to tenants can only be a good thing.'
Similarly, Andrew Finlayson, of the Carrington Group in Sydney - which has buildings such as Capella in Kensington, Meta by Starck in Surry Hills and Beumont in Wahroonga, has said he also encourages owners' corporations to be pet friendly.
Mr Finlayson stated, 'To be honest, we haven't had any problems in any of the buildings where there are pets, as most people adhere to the rules, so there's no reason to change them.
It's nice for people, as it widens the market for them to be able to live in an apartment with their pet, particularly in the inner city. Our planned projects for the future are all pet-friendly too.'
Arguments against tenants being able to keep pets
1. Pet ownership is not an unfettered right
The right to pet ownership is limited by a set of legal restrictions even where the pet owner also owns the accommodation.
Using the New South Wales Companion Animals Act as an example, there are restrictions placed on where cats and dogs may be (for example, dogs are prohibited from being in playgrounds, school yards, shopping centres and eateries) and how they may behave. There are behaviours that can result in either dogs or cats being deemed a nuisance or a danger to neighbours or others and which, if they persist, may result in the animal being seized.
These restrictions are intensified where the pet is to be kept on a property that does not belong to the pet owner. The fundamental difference is that the landlord has the right to not have a pet kept on the property at all. All leases in Australia have a pet clause similar to that in the New South Wales Residential Tenancy Agreement where clause 43 stipulates 'The tenant agrees not to keep animals on the residential premises without obtaining the landlord's consent.' Clause 44 further states 'The landlord agrees that the tenant may keep the following animals on the residential premises...' Where clause 44 has not been filled in, the tenant has no right to keep a pet on the rental property.
Throughout Australia tenants have a right to what is termed 'quiet enjoyment' of the property being rented. Under the New South Wales Residential Tenancy Agreement, for example, clause 14 states, 'The landlord agrees that the tenant will have quiet enjoyment of the residential premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord (such as a head landlord), and that the landlord or the landlord's agent will not interfere with, or cause or permit any interference with, the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in using the residential premises.'
It is generally claimed that the tenant's right to 'quiet enjoyment' of the property is not substantially affected by a landlord prohibiting pets.
2. Pets can damage a property
Property Owners Association of Queensland president, Mr Bruce McBryde, has said that many real estate agents encouraged landlords not to allow pets in their properties.
Mr McBryde stated, 'Around 80% of agents don't recommend property owners have pets because of the trouble caused post-tenant. It is just an extra burden on landlords.
Pets leave smells behind, fleas and can stain carpets, floors and can really turn a nice house into a not-so-nice house... Pets are one of the few things landlords can discriminate on and it is their right to do so.'
This is not always the case and there appears to be a growing tendency for agents to encourage owners to exercise discretion when considering whether to allow pets to be kept on their premises. This is the attitude of Sydney Real Estate Agent G.K. Hurst who states 'property managers often encourage property owners to have an open mind about pets. However, on their Internet site G.K. Hurst lists both the disadvantages and the advantages of allowing pets.
Included among the disadvantages are that 'Badly behaved pets can cause tremendous damage to your property and garden; especially if pets are younger or left unsupervised.'
Hurst also warns 'Even cute little puppies have the potential to leave nasty odours behind. If pets aren't properly toilet trained, there's even a greater chance for permanent floorboard damage.' Finally they caution 'Pets can be a breeding ground for fleas and other pest infestations if they're not properly cared for.'
In August, 2011, a landlord commented in a Queensland online news site, replying to a story on restrictions on pet owners as renters. She wrote, 'I allowed my current tenants to keep pets on the premises and the lease agreements specified that the pets were to be outside only. I am in the midst of having the lease terminated as the tenants continually bring the pets inside. Worse still, the pets have done some damage to the inside of my property. In the past, other tenants brought their pets inside the property (when specified it was forbidden) and damage occurred...
I've had enough of tenants and am going to sell the property once the tenants are gone. If I ever bought another house and rented it out, I would never allow tenants to have pets on my property ever again. It's sad that those bad people spoil it for those good ones out there but there comes a point when enough is enough.'
3. Pets can inconvenience other tenants
Where a rental property is not a house, but a complex where the tenants life in close proximity to each other pet ownership comes with particular risks and obligations. Some pets can inconvenience other tenants.
The types of inconvenience pets can cause are many and varied. They can cause a noise nuisance. Their excrement can soil common access areas. They can be responsible for disturbing odours. They can prompt allergies in other tenants. They can be aggressive. They can injure other tenants. Their presence can restrict the freedom of movement of other tenants. They can damage gardens intended for the enjoyment of all tenants. They can be a menace to the children of other tenants.
The New South Wales Young Lawyers Animal Rights Association has stated, 'Keeping animals in residential areas, particularly in a strata scheme, can raise issues such as cleanliness, noise, and unsociable behaviour.'
Referring to a strata scheme they go on to state, 'Whether you are intending to rent or purchase in a strata scheme, you may need to obtain prior written consent from the Owners Corporation in order to keep your pet in the scheme, depending upon the By-laws which apply.'
Strata arrangements require not only the permission of the landlord; they require the approval of other tenants. Though other tenants cannot 'unreasonably' object to the presence of a pet the landlord has approved, their reasonable approval depends on the pet not presenting a nuisance of any sort to other residents. Indeed there are some tenants who move into a particular complex precisely because they will not have to deal with the difficulties posed by their neighbours' pets.
David Ferguson, the managing director of strata company Strata Plus, has referred to one waterfront building in Neutral Bay where the bylaws ban pets - and some residents moved in for that very reason, believing pets might attract rats.
The New South Wales Young Lawyers Animal Rights Association has stated, 'Even though you may have the consent of the landlord any owner or occupier within the scheme can apply for an order to remove a pet on the grounds that it is causing a nuisance...'
4. Property owners are often not indemnified against pet damage
It has been noted that allowing pets is a significant risk for most landlords as the bond may not cover the cost of repairing any damage caused and most insurance policies do not cover damage caused by a tenant's pet.
When advising landlords on their insurance options, the online insurance advice site, Insurance Buddy, notes, 'There are some restrictions, as you may expect. Landlord insurance may not cover damage by rodents, trees or tenants' pets.'
Similarly, on a renters' and landlords' forum, one of the posters notes, 'The challenge is that it may well cost far more than the bond to repair pet damage, and landlord insurance policies do not cover pet damage. For most landlords not allowing pets is risk mitigation.'
It has also been noted that a pet bond is not part of the tenancy act in most Australian states. Some states actually specifically disallow the charging of such bonds. Tasmanian legislation, for example, prohibits landlords from receiving any monies other than one period of rent in advance and four weeks' bond. Landlords cannot accept any other fees or bonds relating to the tenancy.
In Western Australia it is possible to charge a pet bond of up to $100. In New South Wales the maximum amount that can be charged as a pet bond was raised to $260 in June, 2011; however, this does not affect tenants with pre-existing leases who have made different bond arrangements.
Property Owners Association of Queensland president Bruce McBryde has indicated that property owners were generally wary of the cost of damage to their properties and the difficulties in recouping those costs. He has claimed it is difficult to get tenants to take responsibility for damage caused by pets to rental properties since in states like Queensland the Residential Tenancies Authority allowed for no extra protection for landlords.
5. Some rental accommodation is not suitable for pets
A number of animal support groups actually discourage those in certain sorts of rental accommodation from owning pets. It has been noted that apartment living is not suited to the needs of many pets. The New South Wales RSPCA has brought out a brochure giving advice to prospective dog owners who are apartment dwellers. The brochure states, 'Dogs are social animals and are not suited to being left alone for long periods. Getting a second dog to keep the other dog company is not a logical solution - you could make the problem twice as bad for yourself and your neighbours.'
Some of the factors the RSPCA considers could make an apartment problematic for a dog are indicated in the following questions. 'Are the balconies safe and of suitable size for the dog? Are the floorboards/floor coverings suitable? Is there sufficient insulation or soundproofing throughout the dwelling? Can you give the dog access to windows so it can look out? Are there dog-friendly parks and walking areas nearby? Do you travel often? If so do, who will care for the dog when you are away? Can you interact with the dog at least three times a day?'
This view of responsible pet ownership is endorsed by the American Kennel Club which states, 'Owning a dog is a privilege and a responsibility. These animals depend on us for, at minimum, food and shelter, and deserve much more. If you are considering taking a dog into your life, you need to think seriously about the commitment that dog ownership entails.' From this perspective, pet ownership is not a right and someone should only take on a pet if able to meet its needs. Apartment living may be incompatible with meeting a pet's needs.
Further implications
The partially conflicting interests of landlords and pet-owning tenants make this a fraught issue.
Many landlords believe that their ownership rights are being challenged as pets have the capacity to damage properties.
Defenders of tenants claim prohibiting pets reduces the tenants' capacity to have the 'quiet enjoyment' of the property. This argument stems from the belief that pet ownership is an important element of Australian domestic living that cannot reasonably be withheld merely because the tenant is renting rather than owns the home he or she lives in.
This point has been made by Tenants Union of Queensland coordinator, Penny Carr. Ms Carr has stated, 'I would love to run a test case on whether pet owners had a right to house pets on their rental property.
I think there is an argument in saying that not allowing pets is a breach of the right to "quiet enjoyment of the property".
You have a contract which says this is your home and you can't do anything illegal in that home, but other than that you have a right to peace and comfort and privacy in using that property.' It may require such a legal challenge as Ms Carr foreshadows to effect a substantial change in Australian tenancy laws which currently give the determining power to the landlord.
Pressure for such a change is mounting as animal refuges across Australia respond to the influx of surrendered animals, a significant proportion of which have been unwillingly given up by tenants who cannot find pet-friendly accommodation.
As a prelude to any fundamental change in the tenancy laws such that they prevent a landlord discriminating against a tenant on the basis of pet ownership, it may be necessary to make it possible to charge pet bonds in all Australian states and territories. Currently, this can be done in New South Wales, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
The repeated refusal of the New South Wales Parliament to establish a select committee on pet-owning tenants as part of a broader discussion of animal welfare indicates this is not yet seen as a significant political issue.
Over the decade to 2005-06, the proportion of Australian households renting from a state or territory housing authority remained stable at around 5%, while the proportion renting privately rose from 19% to 22%. It appears that a larger number of relatively wealthy people are taking up rental accommodation, particularly those who wish to live in inner cities. Commenting on social trends in 2008, the Australian Bureau of Statistics noted, 'Renting is relatively common among young adults and low income households. In addition, some high income households may choose to rent for financial, lifestyle or other reasons.'
If this trend toward wealthier tenants continues, the pressure to allow pet ownership among them is likely to increase. Further, as the Australian population ages and elderly citizens move out of their homes into various forms of supported accommodation, the demand that they be able to take their companion animals with them is also likely to grow.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
This issue was initiated by newspapers not indexed by Echo, therefore there is no list of items on this page.
However, you can see the newspaper items listed in the Internet Sources section, along with other information.