Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Bill presented and read a first time. Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill will now be read a second time. The aim of this amendment is to give people who have been adversely affected by the conduct of a tenant the opportunity to present a case to a court as to why that tenant's rental agreement should be terminated. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, the only person or body who can seek such a termination is the landlord. This is fine, except in many cases, the landlord does not have to contend with the constant aggravation or antisocial behaviour exhibited by some tenants. It is a neighbours who have to put up with the disruptive or abusive conduct, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, yet they are powerless to do anything about it. Hence, the landlord is often slow to react. The reason I am introducing this amendment is because, for some time, I have seen people becoming exasperated and desperate in coping with the behaviour of unruly tenants in public housing. Some of our people have left town; others reached crisis point where they can no longer cope; some tenants have left their tenancies; and most have many sleepless nights, kept awake by a loud and abusive behaviour. Of course, these neighbours can make a complaint to the landlord. This has happened on many occasions, but a lack of action by the landlord - in particular, the Department of Housing - merely exacerbates the problem. At present, tenants who write letters of complaints which are used as evidence if a case goes to court, then find they are expected to front up to the court as well. Courts may be reluctant to accept statutory declaration as evidence on their own. A resident, under the current guidelines, must present in court. This is not always easy to do, particularly as long delays, in many instances, have occurred before the department takes action. By then, relationships between neighbours had well and truly broken down. It is well known there are difficulties with some public housing tenants in Alice Springs. The majority of tenants are law abiding citizens who are willing and able to live in peace with their fellow renters, but there are others who cannot peacefully cohabitate in housing estates for a variety of reasons, or perhaps they are unable to control the behaviour of their visitors, again for a variety of reasons. This is a complex issue and requires a range of solutions. I am pleased to see the government has introduced preventive measures such as employing community liaison officers and deterents such as increased security patrols. I believe this amendment complements these measures by asserting the rights of neighbours who should not have to endure antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhood. This amendment gives them the right to formally lodge a claim to a court for a tenancy agreement to be terminated if that agreement has been breached for reasons of objectionable behaviour over a period of time. The amendment enhances section 100 of the Residential Tenancy Act. At the moment this section states that the court may terminate a tenancy agreement where the conduct of a tenant has been unacceptable in any of these circumstances: when a tenant has been using the premises or allowed it to be used for an illegal purpose; when the tenant has repeatedly caused a nuisance or allowed a nuisance to occur; or when the tenant has repeatedly caused or allowed an interference with the reasonable peace of other people living nearby. The section states that only a landlord can lodge an application for terminating a tenancy agreement. I am proposing two key changes in this section. Firstly, allowing an 'interested person' to make an application to a court to terminate a tenant's rental agreement, which will give affected persons the legal avenue to uphold their rights to quiet enjoyment of their home. An interested person is someone who has been adversely affected by the conduct of a tenant. Secondly, the landlord will be given the opportunity to be heard by the court when an application to terminate an agreement has been made by an interested person. This arrangement provides a fair go for the neighbours and a fair go for the landlord. This is not without precedent. The South Australian Residential Tenancies Act contains a similar provision and research has told us it has been utilised by hundreds of people who have been so affected by unruly tenants that they have to resort to court action. There does however, remain the issue that people are reluctant to front up to court to present their case and naturally, a court would prefer in-person evidence rather than a statutory declaration. It is important that any moves by a tenant to remove a neighbour are made when the situation has become unbearable rather than a vexatious claim. The point is that in South Australia, people have the option to take action rather than just relying on the land lord taking action. My amendment alone will not solve the problems presently being experienced in Alice Springs and other urban centres. Living in housing estates, be they private or public, necessarily means that people are living in close quarters and need to comply with certain standards of acceptable behaviour. This is clearly written in the Residential Tenancies Act section 54 and the Department of Housing's tenancy agreements. When a tenant has difficulties with their tenancy, the solution should not just concentrate on that tenant. Affected neighbours should also be considered because it is their privacy and their right to enjoy their home free of harassment and nuisance that has been severely impeded, sometimes permanently. If the measures proposed by the government change the antisocial behaviour of the tenant, then that will be good for everyone, but if there is no change with intervention, then neighbours should be able to protect their rights. This way, my amendment works hand in hand with the government measures. Mr Deputy Speaker, I comment the bill to honourable members. Debate adjourned. |