Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Bill presented and read a first time. Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. Madam Speaker, as you are doubtlessly aware, the issue of out of control tenants has become a major problem in Alice Springs, and as more and more information comes to hand, it appears to be a problem in other centres as well. The Residential Tenancies Act was introduced into the Northern Territory in the interest of creating an environment of certainty for both landlords and tenants so that the rules surrounding tenancy law were clear and there for all to know. Overbearing and bullying landlords have often been cited as being out of control, and the tenancy legislation in the NT was touted as being one of the central planks in keeping out of control behaviour of landlords in check. That is well and good. The rights of landlords were also enshrined so that the miscreant tenants could be dealt with by way of rules set out in the Residential Tenancies Act. However, there has now come a time when it appears that the Territory's largest landlord, NT Housing Authority, is incapable of controlling some of its tenants in its charge. At a public meeting held last year in Alice Springs, the authority appeared to be unable or unwilling to deal with the abuse of Territory housing property in the Larapinta area of Alice Springs. One of the complaints raised by the people who live in the vicinity was the inability for the landlord to do anything against miscreant tenants because they were too frightened to give evidence in a tenancy application before a court. I will digress here to make a few comments about the situation in Alice Springs in particular. The meeting was called after riots, Madam Speaker, as you well know - literally riots broke out in the area between rival families of NT housing tenants. This matter was raised as a matter of public importance in this House, but the minister's response was to dismiss those people who had the audacity to complain as racists or being racially motivated. This, I say to the minister, is pure and unadulterated rubbish. The tenants at that meeting last year and I do not care what colour a rioter is - a rioter is a rioter, is a rioter. The NT Housing Authority is under the command of a minister who sees his role as a social engineer, and he has said as much only last week in this House. He speaks of social equity without giving one jot of consideration to the consequences of his approach that have led to predictable destruction, injury and bloodshed in the area of Alice Springs that used to be a reasonably peaceful place to live. I should know because I lived in that area. I recently returned to my old flat which was vacant. It was rendered uninhabitable by a fire that had been set, affecting that and the flat next door. I was advised that the fire was the result of a criminal act. For what it is worth, in terms of the deaf ears of the minister, if he believes in social responsibility then he should formulate his policies in such a way that the rest of society is not affected by the social [inaudible] that NT Housing has become under his command. NT Housing staff who attended that meeting last year advised the meeting that they could not proceed with an action against a miscreant tenant unless the person making the complaint was prepared to give evidence. The meeting demonstrated that the people of that area were too frightened to do so for fear of reprisals and, considering some of the things that they had seen, I can understand why. At that meeting, I made a promise that I would present legislation to this House so that they could make a complaint, and that complaint would be actioned by NT Housing without having to give evidence in the first instance. Sadly, the Residential Tenancy Act binded not only NT Housing, but all landlords equally, so a middle road has to be found. After what the people at that meeting were told, all who live there thought it was imperative to give evidence if NT Housing were to do anything. That is not now, and was not then, entirely the case. In accordance with section 100 of the act, a court may terminate the tenancy for three reasons: first, that the premises were being used for an illegal purpose; second, repeatedly causing a disturbance and nuisance; and finally, repeatedly interfering with the reasonable peace and privacy of a person in the immediate vicinity of the premises. The mechanics of it, as it was explained at the public meeting last year, is that, if such an action were to be taken by NT Housing as the landlord, then the person making complaint had to give evidence to establish NT Housing's case. This is not completely accurate. These applications are heard in the local court. Rule 2101 of the Local Court Rules allows evidence in any proceeding to be given by way of affidavit. This means that if an agreed person gives a sworn statement to NT Housing, they would be able to commence proceedings against a miscreant tenant. It would only be logical that, if NT Housing received complaints about a tenant, they would investigate those complaints and it would not take long for them to establish from residents around the house of responsibility if they had a problem client or not. Affidavits could be collected and an action could at least be commenced with a view that the good order and harmony of residents living in the area should be protected. It is certainly true that, if the contents of those affidavits were to be contested, then the person who makes the affidavit maybe be required to give evidence under 2102 of the Local Court Rules. In such an instance, it would be unreasonable to change the Residential Tenancies Act to allow for a court to evict a person on the uncontested evidence of an affidavit. I would, however, suggest that in most cases, should an application be made about a miscreant NT Housing tenant, to get to the stage of proceedings would be uncommon. The Evidence Act and the Criminal Code provide protection for potential witnesses. I would have thought that the minister would make certain that when people are finally required to give evidence, they would be advised of the protection the law offers them. Then we come to the purpose of this bill. This bill allows for a landlord to act upon the complaints of people living around the premises occupied by a tenant in the property of the landlord. Currently, as I have explained, the system requires complaint from the tenant to be in the form of a declaration in its own right. Nevertheless if, as a landlord, four written complaints are received, then it will be in the preview of this bill to allow the landlord to proceed by way of affidavit to aver that the complaints are legitimate written complaints. It is a simple amendment which allows for expediency in process, and for action to be proceeded more effectively. It does not remove the right for a tenant to defend him or herself if they should chose to defend themselves to an action against them. In the case of NT Housing, it will provide flexibility in beginning actions when their tenants and those tenant's guests get out of hand. It does mean that there is an exception to the hearsay rule required, and that is captured by the bill. No rights are lost, no liberties are at stake. However, the message has to be clear that landlords should be allowed a greater flexibility when a tenant becomes a problem. With the exception of NT Housing, landlords are in the business of leasing premises as it provides an income. I do not believe that they will as a general rule, use this legislation to hassle those people who help put butter on their tables, namely their tenants. I accept that there have been some overbearing landlords in the past, however nothing in this amendment provides any greater power to a landlord to become more difficult. It does, however, provide flexibility for actions, and it provides a court a wider power to look at the behaviour of tenants. For that reason, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. |