16 April 2026

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Thank you, Mr President, I rise to speak to the Residential Parks Bill. Before I go any further, I would like to declare that my brother has owned the Somerset Beachside Cabin and Caravan Park for over 20 years, and my sister and her partner also help him to run it. In light of my family connection, I've sought the advice of the Clerks and under the terms of Standing Order No. 103 relating to pecuniary interest, I have no direct or personal interest in the park, other than being fully aware of my siblings' involvement in its ownership and operations. I seek your advice as according to Standing Order No. 103, part (1), the Council may decide, on motion, whether I may vote upon questions relating to the bill when we get to the Committee stage.

In doing that, I'd like to draw the attention of this place to when Wayne and Jackie bought the place in 2006, I spent many hours down there assisting in the cafe and the nursery and working at the park. At that time I said to my brother, 'Am I getting paid?' He said, 'Well, no, Michael, your service is not of the standard that I would have to pay for it.' So, I had a three-year internship, and so in 2009 I put the question to him again. He said, 'well, no, now that you're a member of parliament, it would be wrong for you to have a second job.' So he got me both ways. I've only got to wait a few more years, and I think I can get him for elder abuse so I'm waiting for that.

However, that being said, and like almost every other family connection, it has given me unique insights into residential parks, and in considering the bill, I've also sought input and comment from other residential parks in my electorate. That's both the local government areas of Latrobe and Devonport. Their comments and conversations have been insightful, and they speak to the community of care that surrounds so many of their residential parks and their residents.

I do not apologise that my speech today may not reflect some of the information we gleaned from today's briefing. I did appreciate the briefings; I just haven't had a chance to mould that into the speech. There has been an interesting start to the morning, and I'm certain there are a few people out there watching and listening who may also be a little confused; however, this is where we find ourselves.

Residential parks fill an unmet and often growing need in so many of our communities. In a cost-of-living crisis which, for many people, and especially those approaching retirement, has been a constant challenge throughout their lives, the opportunity to own a dwelling on a residential park has been possibly their only opportunity to buy a place they can call their own, at a price that they can afford. It does come with a proviso: they can own a dwelling and must pay ground rent for the site it's on, and for access to any site facilities they may need.

At the current time, leasing arrangements for the site and access to park facilities are very much an individual arrangement between park owners and residents. As I've experienced, they can differ in every residential park. I suppose that's part of the challenge to which this is to provide a framework. All of them are subject to various rules and regulations that can vary across Tasmania on exactly how an agreement is worded or verbally agreed. I appreciate the member for Rosevears and her relationship with the people where she was coming from, where I suppose I sit on the other side of the fence, coming from knowing very well what my brother and sister and their family go through, so that is fine.

Like almost all agreements and contracts, they set up a schedule of rights and obligations for all parties. Often the most substantive elements are there to avoid unnecessary disagreement, or at least how those might be resolved in the fairest and most straightforward way. Recent instances have seen disagreements escalate and heading to the courts to be resolved, a move which has foreshadowed the development of the bill.

In the past, we have relied upon benevolent goodwill from all sides, and this does continue in almost all residential parks. A residential park is a unique community and at their best, those who own and operate them see themselves as guardians and custodians on what are close knit communities that look out for each other. They perhaps reflect the very best of an old-school Tasmanian culture, one where no one sees themselves as being any better than any other and we are all out to help each other get along. We might see the odd grumble or two, but we sort it out as best we can and then put it behind us to get on with life and living.

Residential parks can also act as a sanctuary for troubled souls who, through no fault of their own, have struggled in life and finding a home within their community. When they are looking for a place to live, the best park owners know their communities and will often go above and beyond to find a place for an incoming resident to call home. Anecdotal comments suggests what may be initially troubled souls often settle into being valued members of a residential park community. Perhaps it is indicative that the struggle to find a place to live creates unbearable stress and pressure and impossible wellbeing challenges on some of the most vulnerable in our community.

Mr President, with these last points in mind, they lead me now on to a few questions and technical queries about the function and the operation of the bill.

The fact that a dwelling is placed or built on land belonging to the park owner sets up an interesting dynamic. It is one where the dwelling is technically regarded as being movable whilst often giving every impression of being a semi-permanent structure. There are also many variations of what might be termed a dwelling, which can range from an old caravan with wheels and tow bar still attached to what might be termed a modern day shack fixed to the ground with solid walls and a Colourbond roof complete with running water, drainage and heat pump. It is a structure that may have evolved from a caravan that was first pulled up onto the site and often quietly added onto by the resident, whilst gently ignoring conventional planning and building regulations.

Therein lies another problem. The initial community consultation on the bill gave the opportunity for councils and the Local Government Association of Tasmania to examine the draft and put in a submission. Many did so. The quandary faced by councillors, as we heard this morning, which may have had a residential park within their municipality, is that they have a statutory responsibility to ensure the compliance of dwellings with established planning, building and plumbing regulations. The quandary comes as a residential park falls between two stools. Are they to be seen as permanent structures, as buildings, or are they to be seen as temporary movable structures such as a caravan or mobile home?

The bill uses the term 'dwelling', which it vaguely defines in broad, generic terms, and yet the bill offers highly detailed and precise clauses regarding the transfer of ownership of a dwelling and the processes by which it might be relocated or removed, and who is likely to bear the cost. Selling or relocating dwellings such as a tent, a yurt, a campervan or roadworthy caravan is a very different proposition to that of a 30-year-old mobile home that has its axles and tow bar removed and extensions built onto it set in concreted footings. The first is an easy task and the second would or could well be a costly demolition job with an excavator and approved waste disposal.

The bill does attempt to regulate a resident's alterations or additions to a dwelling in section 27. However, its equivocal use of the terms 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' leaves a degree of subjectivity in the park owners' consent process, one that perhaps overlaps with the current ad hoc arrangements on dwelling alterations in existing parks. The clause does hint at an undefined legal requirement as grounds for refusal, and maybe that is a nod to future changes in building and planning regulations for residential park dwellings, a neat segue into the bill's transitional provisions.

The transitional provisions in Schedule 1 does leave open the question as to how, over a five year period, regulations may be made to address these quirks. I am sure councils and park owners will be taking a keen interest in the process as they all attempt to square the circle of what might be seen as a building and what can be defined as a temporary structure. To help the process, can the government offer greater clarity in the definition of the term 'dwelling' used throughout the bill? Can it take account of the ease, or not, of relocating a dwelling and who might be responsible for the difference in costs of doing so?

I also have to consider that the transitional provisions leave a degree of uncertainty around existing structures. Is there an opportunity of including grandfathering clauses in the transitional regulations, so that dwellings in their current and ongoing ownership will not be subject to the retrospective application of updated regulations?

There are a number of gaps in the bill. One of the most significant is its complete silence on insurance and liability. The bill regulates almost every aspect of living in a residential park, from lease agreements, residents committees to abandoned property and park rules; yet, it says nothing about regulations for mitigating and managing risk and loss if something were to go wrong.

In a community of what are often closely spaced dwellings, the bill provides no guidance if a dwelling were to catch on fire and damage the home next door. It does not define a responsibility or require residents to insure their dwellings. In a time when we are seeing an increasing number of spontaneous house fires caused by rechargeable lithium batteries, it's a very real and increasing danger. For many residents, particularly older Tasmanians on limited incomes with increasing health related expenses, a single uninsured loss can be financially devastating. We only have to look at the back of past newspaper reports to see the devastating impact on a family of an uninsured house fire or flood event.

For park owners, the absence of any statutory framework in the bill creates a degree of uncertainty. The park rules do not allow a park owner to insist that residents have insurance or have smoke alarms. Subsequently, they may face claims, disputes or pressure to compensate residents even when they have done nothing wrong.

The bill creates a highly regulated agreement structure between residents and park owners without addressing the most basic question of what happens when disaster strikes. As responsible businesses, park owners naturally carry business insurance as an essential part of their risk management and some residents do too, but not all. I understand that the RACT did offer insurance for the owners of dwellings in residential parks, but it's now only for ongoing policies as it has closed its books to new policy holders.

We also have a possible knock-on effect that the bill may have on business insurance for park owners. I understand for one owner their business insurance premium went up by $6000 in just one year. It's an additional cost that will have to be passed on to the residents' site fees. I also understand an ongoing concern for park owners, is that even going through a broker, it appears there is only one company in the world that offers insurance for residential parks and it's based in the UK. Has the government consulted with that company on the likely insurance implications from the bill? There's always a chance that changes will encourage new policy writers to enter the market, or maybe the opposite, as one park owner said to me:

It's getting much harder to get park insurance. My broker basically said it's a year-by-year proposal now. If I lose my current insurer, he's doubtful how I could replace them.

If the new act does cause an issue and the sole UK based underwriter withdraws its policy, what options will park owners have? Or will TasInsure and or the government come to the rescue of both park owners and residents?

Looking again to the residents, one of the practical issues in this bill is the way it formalises the dialogue between park owners and residents. The bill places clear and forcible obligations on the park owner. They must consult, they must notify and they must give a residents committee every opportunity to make representations, and the park owner must respond in writing. It's a natural and clear option as it avoids the risk of anecdotal confusion, creates certainty and gives a physical record of the communication. However, the bill does not require the committee to provide those self-same representations to the park owner in writing. There is no regulated expectation for the residents committee to provide written correspondence, keep minutes or record decisions, and no guidance on its governance other than a vague rule to determine which group or committee a park owner should engage with. The committee can communicate in any way it sees fit - verbally, informally, via social media, or not at all - yet, the owner must still demonstrate that they have consulted and responded in writing, even if a committee chooses to engage in an unregulated manner. The different risk creates a real problem.

As we've seen in recent disputes, written evidence is a crucial tool in determining an equitable outcome. It removes hearsay. The owner carries the legal obligations with penalties attached, and the committee with none of the procedural responsibilities or consequences that would make consultation transparent, consistent and verifiable. Owners are left to prove one-sided compliance with an act and there's no responsibility on the residents committee to do the same.

If the intention of the bill is to prescribe meaningful resident consultation and dialogue with park owners, then a basic requirement for written communication on all sides would strengthen that objective. As it stands, it risks conflagrating a dispute if there's no permanent record of what questions were asked and any dialogue that may have occurred. For example, one of the committee members walks past the owner day by day, says something to them about an issue, no record of that, so when it comes up, that person can say, 'Well, I spoke to the manager about that and nothing's occurred.' But there's nothing in writing, there's no record. That needs to be tightened up, I think, or it needs to be looked at and addressed.

I want to draw members' attention to the abandoned property provisions in the bill. With the best will in the world, park owners are often left with the need to sort out what happens with property that a resident may leave behind, either intentionally or through no fault of their own if they have to leave for health reasons or if they pass away. It's interesting, I wasn't going to say it, but my sister, who's a couple of years younger than me, has had five deaths in the park and she's not trained in that. Somebody will say, 'So-and-so hasn't been seen for two days,' then my sister goes over, knocks on the caravan, then has to go in and there's a body. That's an issue that I don't think people - or, I'm not going to say young people - people come to the park, my brother and sister say, 'Look, put your tent here. Be here for as long as you like till you get yourself sorted,' four days later in the middle of the night, they scamper and leave their stuff around. The park owner is left to figure out what to do with their property.

Like so much in the bill, the provisions defining and controlling the management and disposal of abandoned property are quite onerous for park owners. The definitions are vague enough to excite a no-win, no-fee lawyer and rely on a degree of subjective decision making by the park owner with judicial penalties if they get it wrong or make an inadvertent error in the various complex notices and tribunal processes.

I'd like to move on to the requirements in section 89 relating to what it loosely calls 'valuable abandoned property'. It's a term defined by default as not being covered under previous categories and comes with four pages of 'must' and 'should' clauses written into the bill with penalties attached. If we take one part, the process of giving notice to the departed owner, it could have been written in the middle of the last century. If the park owner doesn't have a forwarding address for the relevant resident, they are obligated to publish a notice in a newspaper. Are we really going back to that? Will a post on a park or local chitchat social media page not suffice? Or a simple text message to the former resident on the mobile number they registered with? Could even notifying a secondary contact, including an agreement, be another option?

The other issue is storage, where the owner is obligated to keep such property safe and on site until it can be returned to its owner, sold or disposed of, or until the tribunal determines a possession order. Whose issue is it if the property is inadvertently damaged or stolen whilst being stored? The risk currently falls on the park owner to prove a negative, to demonstrate they have complied with every aspect of the legislation relating to abandoned property.

The bill also states that, if the undefined valuable property is not claimed within the specific notice periods, it must be sold by public auction. On paper, 50 years ago that may have appeared to be an orderly and transparent process, but in the modern-day real world of residential parks, it is neither practical nor proportionate. Public auctions are expensive. They require advertising, auctioneer fees, compliance steps and often transport and preparation of the goods. In many cases the cost of running the auction will exceed the value of the property itself and for park owners, particularly small family run parks, these are not theoretical burdens. These are real out of pocket expenses imposed by the bill with no guarantee of recovering any of it. The bill already requires to store the property, secure it, notify the former resident and keep detailed records. Adding an enforced auction on top of that creates a compliance regime that is heavy handed and costly.

There is an opportunity to include a phrase used in such other jurisdictions to have the property 'sold by public auction or in such other manner as the park owner sees fit', so there is a way of assisting. It's an additional phrase that allows a reasonable degree of flexibility on the part of the park owner. So much of the bill relies on the application and interpretation of reasonableness, and given those precedents, it would be a sensible addition.

What it does is recognise is the reality that an old fridge, outdoor setting or a bicycle does not justify a full auction process. In fact, the park owner may find an auctioneer rejecting low value lots, or maybe not even receiving a bid and having to pay for its disposal. A degree of reasonable flexibility would allow park owners to use a local dealer, an online marketplace or a private sale, all of which may achieve a better net return for the former resident and at a fraction of the cost. It will also reduce the administrative burden, reduce disputes and allow parks to operate effectively without comprising fairness or due process.

Another issue within the bill is the arrangements following the death of a resident. Section 32 insists that the agreement continues until any dwelling on the site is sold according to the act. It's a clause that naturally means the deceased resident's estate will have a continuing liability to pay rent on the site following the death of a resident. So far so good; however, if the deceased resident's estate is waiting for probate to be granted, what then?

I know of a still to be resolved issue where a deceased resident's estate has been waiting for probate for 18 months, with growing rent arrears on their dwelling that remain unpaid. The deceased's family are in limbo. The park owners are in limbo, as the dwelling cannot be sold or transferred until probate is granted, and it's likely that the condition of the dwelling may well be deteriorating. Both parties in this case would like to get it sorted, but their hands are tied. What can the government do to support the family and park owners to resolve the issue? Can there be specific provisions made in the bill or its regulations to allow a dwelling to be sold in such circumstances, and the proceeds held by the director until the estate is settled?

The current reprint of the bill comes in at 146 pages, one that's grown by 12 pages with amendments from the other place. I assume it can only be expanded with our own possible changes. There are parts of the bill that are written in plain English, using language and terms that are easily understood. There are also sections drafted in perfect legalese that must be fairly opaque to even the sharpest of legal linguistic minds. As a perfect example of impenetrable legalese, I draw honourable members' attention to Part 3, Division 4 of the bill, with its six clauses relating to the continuation or reissue of certain agreements. I read that and I went, 'Help!'

Our role in this place is to review legislation to make sure it functions properly and does not bring any unreasonable changes to our community and Tasmania as a whole. As such, it must be drafted in a form that can be reasonably understood and applied by those whom it may affect, whilst also meeting the requirements of the legal process. The result is often a style of legalese and phrasing that appears to be back to front, the absence of something that can be described a clause. The definition of 'valuable abandoned property' in section 89(1) is a perfect example. It doesn't say what it is other than to say what it's not.

My concern - and it's not a criticism of the bill but trying to make the legislation as strong and as workable as possible - is how residents and park owners will come to understand the implications for them within the bill's 146 pages of complex verbiage, complete with its statutory processes, notice periods and penalties. Yes, there is a transition period, but from the bill's commencement its rules will be enacted.

I must ask the government what support and advice will be made available for residents and park owners to help them get it right. I think everybody wants to get it right. Both sides will still want to be sure that they're doing the right thing. Besides drafting notice templates, will the director have powers to establish a helpline and navigated services for all parks in park agreements, and with ongoing support for new agreement signatories?

Residents may well have greater trust in community legal services, and given their own funding challenges, will the government allocate additional funding and training for community legal services to best help their clients to come to them for advice on the new agreements and arrangements? On the other side, will the Property Council get the same support to help its members that may be park owners? I must put on the record that it was pleasing to hear in the briefings today, when we were told there were going to be a number of strategies being considered and highlighted in the briefing, and I'm certain the Leader might reinforce some of those in her closing debates, I was heartened by that; but as I said earlier, I had the speech written a couple of days ago.

The bill is rightly seeking to bring a degree of certainty and consistency in the operation of residential parks for the benefit of both residents and park owners. While the bill is complex and attempts to foreshadow future points of contention, the need for safe and reasonably priced homes has never been greater. We only have to see the growing interest in mini homes and container homes, and the problems such owners have with meeting council regulations to site them, to realise that residential parks have a huge potential to address the urgent need for new housing.

I just want to put it in context: I think my brother's place has about 69 or 70 permanent residents. That's a lot of people. It's a community and it's one that they've worked really hard on to make a good community. I think that it's hard work when you've got people coming in and out, and in all different stages of their life, and all different emotional states. My brother and sister do the very best they can to help that person fit into the community and be part of that community. With constantly growing waitlists for public housing, residential parks serve an unmet community need, be it for older residents seeking a benevolent community in which they can maintain their independence, to single people seeking a new start, or for those who simply cannot afford to own their own home and the land it's built on.

Residential parks are the dignified option for people who need a place to call their own. I would welcome the opportunity in the transitional arrangements for the government to consider how residential parks could be better incorporated into the Tasmanian Planning Scheme as a sensible option for lower cost housing, and give councils greater confidence in their operation.

As an aside, I've been working on a vegetable garden. All the vegetables go to my sister, who puts them on the bench in the main living area, and people from the park come and help themselves. Any of the clothes that we have in our family, we go and put on there and they take it. It's a real community thing and that's what they do, and I think it's important that we understand that they work on a community basis.

Three weeks ago my brother - he's a muso, he's very good, I have no musical ability, he plays the saxophone, guitar, he sings - he and his mate put on a free concert at the park, and all the people from the park come and they join in. Even more come because he puts the drink on for free, too: good brother. It's that building. But some people in the park don't want to be included. They don't want that contact. They just want to be left alone. They have their own little garden, they have their own little veggie patch, and that's how they relate to one another. But they look out for one another, and it's really important that we don't lose sight of that. We do hear of the situations where there are bad experiences, as there are bad experiences in neighbourhoods, as there are disputes between neighbours. There are also disputes, but living in a confined space as such, and having onsite tents, campervans on powered sites and non powered sites, communal blocks, that sort of thing, it's a different place of living.

I'd like to close by reflecting on my brother's perspective as a park owner. He came into it after finishing up as CEO of Youth and Family Focus. After a lifetime of involvement in community development, supporting homeless youth, suicide prevention and family drug support, perhaps being a park owner has allowed him to fully develop the caring community that is his residential park and one that all the residents can call home. In discussions around the bill, I would like to share an excerpt of an email sent to me by somebody who has worked with my brother Wayne for many years. He said:

I also felt the need to share this with you, my own personal experience with the caravan park and Wayne. In one of my early conversations with Wayne, roughly 14 years ago, he said to me, 'I want everyone who has anything to do with the caravan park to do well out of it.' A comment I've never forgotten.
At the time I took this comment as being pointed at his family and at any other caravan park employees. I quickly realised this comment referred to not only the family and the employees, but also included everyone who resided at the park, local Somerset and greater north-west coast businesses, and lots of other individual people along the way.

He goes on to say:

I guess I've heard these kinds of comments before from various people, but with Wayne and Jacks it was different. More than just a passing comment, it is the reality. If asked, anyone who resides at the park would agree that it is a cheap, easy and friendly place to put a roof over your head in sometimes trying circumstances. It really is a fantastic small community that could continue as such for many years to come.

I think that sums up the perspective of park owners who are in it for the right reasons. I do not think you can be a successful operator unless you genuinely like people, where you give more than you take. That is not talking about money, it is talking about giving someone a leg up and time when they need it - a listening ear that is free from judgement and being a proper Tasmanian who looks out for others.

There are parts of the bill that I think can still be improved, but that is why we have this place. Whether that is by amendment or in the regulations and its implementation, I am sure that they will come up as we debate the bill, and I look forward to seeing what they might be. I am certain I have raised some issues that are already covered in the bill. I just could not figure out the terminology.

I commend the government for bringing it on in a timely manner, and in the way that will fully support park owners and their residents and may yet forestall ongoing legal challenges. My brother's property is on five blocks, or five parcels of land. It would be very easy for him to sell that beachfront property on that place. He does not want to do that, so we have to be sure because 80 people, 80 families, are going to be displaced.

In closing, thank you for the opportunity and I will say publicly before I close, my last opportunity to wish both the member for Huon and the member for Rosevears all the very best in the upcoming elections.