SA inquiry hears automated rental screening may exclude vulnerable tenants

South Australia’s parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of real estate professionals has heard allegations that automated rental application systems may be excluding vulnerable applicants before they have an opportunity to inspect a home.

Reporting published on Friday 23 October said Flinders University associate professor Selina Tually told the inquiry that some agents use computer programs to assess applications using information including income, family circumstances and cultural background.

Prospective tenants had reportedly been asked whether they identified as Aboriginal, whether they had children and where their income came from. SA Greens MP Robert Simms, who chairs the inquiry, said it was concerning if applicants were being eliminated by a computer before an inspection.

The evidence does not establish that every rental platform uses automated ranking in this way, or that an algorithm makes the final decision in every case. It does, however, raise questions about what information is collected, how it is weighted and whether renters know when technology has influenced an outcome.

Why automated screening matters

Rental platforms can help agencies process a large number of applications, check whether forms are complete and present information in a consistent format.

Problems can arise if a system assigns scores, rankings or warnings using criteria that are irrelevant to whether someone can meet their tenancy obligations. A model can also reproduce discrimination if its rules or training information reflect previous biased decisions.

A renter may never know whether they were rejected because another applicant was stronger, because an agent made a judgment or because a platform automatically ranked them near the bottom.

That lack of transparency is especially important in a tight market. People may submit many applications containing financial records, identity documents and personal information without receiving a useful explanation for repeated rejection.

The inquiry’s terms of reference extend beyond technology. The South Australian Parliament says it is examining the adequacy of regulation, codes of practice and dispute resolution, as well as alleged conduct affecting buyers, sellers and renters.

Issues within its scope include underquoting, inaccurate appraisals, undisclosed building faults, rent bidding and unreasonable rental inspection reports. The committee is also considering recommendations to improve consumer protection across the real estate sector.

Existing rules do not answer every question

South Australia has previously acted on rental application privacy and rent bidding. The state’s tenancy framework restricts certain practices involving applicant information and third-party assessments.

The latest evidence suggests regulators may also need to consider how automated systems reach or influence decisions, not simply what appears on an application form.

Possible questions for policymakers include:

• whether applicants should be told when automated screening or ranking is used
• whether agencies should be able to explain the main reason for an adverse recommendation
• what personal characteristics should be prohibited from assessment
• who is responsible when a platform produces a discriminatory result
• how long application information can be stored and whether it can be used for other purposes.

These issues extend beyond South Australia because large application platforms can be used across state borders. Any recommendations could therefore contribute to a broader national debate about rental technology, privacy and discrimination.

What renters can do now

Applicants should provide information required to demonstrate identity, income and rental suitability, but should pause if a form seeks information that appears unrelated or excessively intrusive.

Keep copies of applications, privacy notices and correspondence. If a question concerns protected personal characteristics or an applicant suspects unlawful discrimination, they can seek guidance from the relevant state consumer affairs or equal opportunity body.

Renters should also check whether optional platform services are genuinely required. A paid background check, membership or premium feature should not be assumed to guarantee a better chance of securing a property.

What it means for you

• Rental applicants should read privacy notices and question requests for sensitive information that appears unrelated to the tenancy.
• Repeated rejection does not prove an algorithm is responsible, but keeping records can help if a complaint becomes necessary.
• Agents and landlords should understand how any screening platform ranks applicants rather than relying blindly on its output.
• The inquiry is still gathering and assessing evidence; no new ban or disclosure rule has yet been announced.