- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 22 June 2004
Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 6 of 47
| Next Item »
Page: 9800
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 3 June.
Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [11.58 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill. In general terms the purpose of the bill is to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 to allow for a graduated range of responses to ensure that public housing tenants meet their obligations under their tenancy agreements and are accountable for their behaviour as well as that of others living in the property. It is worth pointing out at the commencement of my contribution that in the past there have not been any tenancy arrangements applying to public housing tenants. For many years I and I am sure other honourable members have dealt with many complaints about the minority of badly behaved public housing tenants who engage in antisocial activity, whether it be the destruction of public property or other forms of antisocial behaviour. In many instances antisocial activity has led to a complete loss of enjoyment by other public housing tenants.
This bill, while it has some controversial elements, is a fairly substantial step in the right direction towards improving the accountability of public housing tenants across the State. Specifically, the bill introduces five significant changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1987, and I make it clear that I am talking about public housing tenancies only, not private tenancies. First, the bill is a recognition of the Government's policy on renewable tenancies, which was introduced in 2002. The bill acknowledges a departmental administrative policy and enshrines that policy in legislation. New section 14A allows the department to nominate a further fixed term upon the expiration of a current fixed-term tenancy agreement.
It is significant that we recognise that in the past there really were no tenancy agreements. Some public housing tenants were of the view that once one went into public housing one was there for life, and that tenants could do what they liked, regardless of the impact on other people. The bill, in a general sense, is an attempt to reverse that view and to make public housing tenants responsible for their behaviour, to act responsibly and to appreciate that public housing is not a right. The legislation also provides for tenancies to last, initially, only for a year. Subsequently, if there are no problems, tenants can go into a three-year or even longer-term tenancy arrangement, which I believe to be fair and reasonable.
New section 35A, a controversial section in this legislation, refers to acceptable behaviour agreements—that is, written agreements between a tenant and the department in which the tenant agrees to cease engaging in specified antisocial behaviour. It is worth spending a few moments to refer to such antisocial behaviour. Under this legislation antisocial behaviour includes instances where a tenant, or anyone the tenant allows onto the premises, either persistently or intentionally causes a nuisance that interferes with the peace, comfort and privacy of neighbours; causes serious damage to residential premises; or causes injury to the department's staff or agent, or any person occupying or permitted on adjoining or adjacent premises.
Antisocial behaviour encompasses different behaviours—from dumping cars, petty vandalism, graffiti and noise nuisance to more serious forms of criminal activity such as verbal and physical harassment and burglary. Antisocial behaviour is a disruptive influence on local communities, in particular, in those areas where public housing is located. It can be frightening and devastating for victims and the effects of victimisation can continue for a long time after the event. Antisocial behaviour is a significant issue for law-abiding public housing tenants who are on the receiving end of such behaviour. There have to be some stronger sanctions against a minority of public housing tenants who destroy public property and the quality of public life for other public housing tenants.
I said earlier that I do not believe that public housing is a right, but it should be available to all who need it. Those who do not respect the fact that they are living in public housing and who behave in a way that is totally antisocial and destructive to the local community in which they are living should be subject to more sanctions than have been imposed in the past. This legislation goes a significant way towards dealing with that issue. Sanctions apply in private tenancy arrangements. If people in the private market behave in a way that is contrary to an agreement, eviction is a possibility. This legislation tries to achieve some sort of compatibility or equality between the way in which tenants in the public housing sector are treated and the way in which tenants in the private rental market are treated.
The Opposition raises a number of concerns in relation to this issue. Opposition members have received a significant number of representations from a number of groups in the community, in particular, those that have an interest in the protection of tenants' rights. Opposition members have received representations from Shelter New South Wales, which is opposed to the onus of proof provisions, to which I will refer later. Opposition members have also received representations from the Tenants Union, which is opposed in many respects to this legislation. The Council of Social Service of New South Wales, which has been in touch with Opposition members, wants the legislation delayed. It is also opposed to the onus of proof provisions. The Central Coast Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service Inc. is also opposed to the onus of proof provisions.
The Opposition is concerned about two issues. First, it is concerned about the treatment of people with mental health difficulties and those who have intellectual disabilities. If they were subjected to an acceptable behaviour agreement, with the onus of proof being on the tenant rather than on the landlord—in this case the Department of Housing—that would be unacceptable. People with mental health problems or people with mental disabilities would not be able to be their own advocate and bear the onus of proof. The Government has assured me—and there is a reference to this matter in the Minister's second reading speech—that people with mental health problems and intellectual disabilities will not be subject to acceptable behaviour agreements.
I am somewhat comforted by that assurance, but I would like the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to reaffirm that people with mental health problems or intellectual disabilities will not be subject to acceptable behaviour agreements where the onus of proof is reversed and the tenant has to bear that onus of proof. I am concerned about the onus of proof issue as it represents a movement away from the traditional situation between landlord and tenant. Normally, the landlord or the applicant has to make out a case before the tribunal as to why the tenant should be evicted or the tenancy agreement should be terminated. In this case we are talking about people who have been in a normal tenancy agreement and who have subsequently gone into an acceptable behaviour agreement.
If people breach that agreement or they refuse to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement, the provisions relating to the onus of proof, which are to be found in new section 64 (2A), become operative. I am concerned about that issue but I am persuaded by the argument that we are talking about people who are not mentally or intellectually disabled and who have no mental health problems. We are talking about people who have been given the right to a tenancy agreement, who have subsequently engaged in antisocial behaviour, who have had an acceptable behaviour agreement imposed or sought to be imposed on them and they have either refused to enter into the agreement or they are in breach of it.
According to my reading of the legislation, in those circumstances the onus of proof lies with the tenant—bearing in mind that the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, not the Department of Housing, will decide whether a lease shall be terminated. Given that the central thrust of this legislation is to protect the amenity of public housing and to protect public housing tenants from the antisocial behaviour of a minority of people, I believe we can reasonably conclude that the onus of proof can be justified in the circumstances that I have outlined.
The Opposition generally supports the legislation, although with the reservations that I have outlined—particularly in relation to the treatment of people with mental health problems and intellectual disabilities. I have endeavoured to deal generally with the onus of proof problem that has been raised with me. During my past 16 years as a member of Parliament I have dealt with a range of complaints regarding public housing and I have come to the conclusion that too often the minority of tenants who behave antisocially spoil it for the majority. The majority of public housing tenants—notwithstanding the position taken by some of the interest groups that approached the Opposition—want people to behave appropriately. They want antisocial behaviour to be eradicated so that the great majority of tenants can enjoy public housing.
I have had brief discussions with the Government about some outcomes that are not in this legislation. We support the Government's proposal for multi-agency specialist response teams that will work within existing resources to provide joint intensive case management support to problematic families. Various departments must take an integrated approach to dealing with antisocial behaviour. The Department of Housing has emphasised that the changes in the bill are a response to problems of social behaviour on the part of a minority of tenants, who can make other tenants' lives a misery. Other measures described but not in the reforms include further developing the memorandum of understanding with the police—that is a good move as the police often respond to complaints of antisocial behaviour and a memorandum of understanding with them is a positive step. The department advises that it is also developing an eviction policy that clarifies the circumstances in which eviction will occur.
The Government is also looking at improving the department's processes for going to the tribunal and expanding mediation services—mediation is preferable to taking a case to the tribunal. I understand that it is piloting an on-site presence for the department in areas where there is a high level of antisocial behaviour. The department is also developing a tenants' compact to outline tenants' rights and responsibilities. They are positive moves. I reiterate that the Opposition has some concerns about the legislation, particularly in relation to public housing tenants with mental health problems and intellectual disabilities. I have dealt with that matter. I seek an assurance from the Government that those tenants will not be subject to any acceptable behaviour agreements because, with the reversal of onus of proof, they will be unable to state their case in an appropriate and comprehensive manner. I have already mentioned the reversal of onus of proof. I think it is time that public housing tenants, especially those who are involved in antisocial activities, were made more accountable for their behaviour and that tougher sanctions should apply. Public housing tenants who are not prepared to follow reasonable standards of behaviour are spoiling it for the great majority of tenants who are prepared to act appropriately.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.14 p.m.]: As the honourable member for Ballina, the shadow Minister for Housing, who led for the Opposition, said, the Liberal Party and The Nationals will not oppose the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill, but we have a number of concerns about it. I represent an electorate with a very large number of public housing tenants. By far the majority of public housing tenants behave appropriately and reasonably but, by definition, often face major economic problems and a range of social disadvantages that affect them substantially. Those who are in public housing deserve to be there—hopefully—and they deserve to live in a secure environment. Over the years I, as the member for Wakehurst, and my electorate officer Noelene Barrell have probably spent more time on public housing issues than any other electorate issue. Those issues often centre on the basics of transferring tenants to different public housing or getting people into public housing—unfortunately, this Government has so underfunded public housing that there is about a 14-year wait for public housing on the northern beaches.
A substantial amount of time is also spent resolving disputes that arise in the public housing environment. Those disputes are often caused by feelings of insecurity and by safety concerns. A number of the public housing complexes in my electorate contain a mix of people—I think that is fairly typical of public housing communities. But we often find that a person who is not necessarily easy to live with and who has a range of problems is inappropriately located in a complex with frail, elderly people. I particularly want to speak to this bill because it fails to address the complex social issues of a fair percentage of public housing tenants. As a former shadow Minister for Housing and as a local member, I am greatly concerned that this Government has not resourced the Department of Housing to address the burgeoning number of social problems facing many tenants in public housing.
The net result is that mental health problems, intellectual disabilities or a combination of both or perhaps a host of other issues associated with social disadvantage—such as isolation, a lack of involvement in the local community or feelings of persecution arising from mental illness—can manifest in antisocial behaviour that is certainly discomforting and worrying for other tenants in a public housing complex. It is not fair that the Carr Government has failed for a decade to address this growing community problem—particularly mental health concerns. This bill addresses some of those issues. It addresses the situation of people who do not suffer from mental illness or disability insofar as when there is disruptive or antisocial behaviour the alleged disruptive person or persons can be asked to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement. I support that move, as does the Opposition.
However, as the shadow Minister said, we are concerned about what should happen in relation to people with mental illness and intellectual disabilities. No-one in this House wants people with intellectual disabilities or mental illness to be treated unreasonably or unfairly, and in most circumstances it would be inappropriate for those people to have input into an acceptable behaviour agreement. This is a complex matter and that is why the Opposition and the shadow Minister have asked the Government to give an undertaking that it does not intend to blindly start using these agreements to add to the disadvantage of people with mental illness or a disability, but, rather, that it will bear in mind that there are circumstances in fringe cases where it might be necessary to use the agreements.
The far bigger issue as a matter of public policy is that for almost a decade the Government has failed to take a co-ordinated, whole-of-government approach to people in public housing who suffer from mental illness and/or an intellectual disability. I put it to the Government and the Minister—there is no Minister within cooee today, but perhaps the Minister or someone from the department might address the issue—that it is time for the Government to put resources into a whole-of-government approach for the Department of Housing to act as the single gateway to providing co-ordinated support services for people with mental illness or an intellectual disability, or a combination of both, and possibly other social issues. A circumstance of a sole parent with an intellectual or mental disability with a child who attends the local school has been brought to my attention. The child does not fit into the local school, and does not get support because of the problems at home, so other issues arise for the child. There is no comprehensive approach to additional support services for the parent, as the tenant, or the child if they need them.
Today the budget was delivered, and there was not one word about more money for the Department of Housing to specifically co-ordinate those sorts of social and integral services, which it is uniquely placed to do. We need to focus on a lead agency, and the Department of Housing is the logical choice. That department's focus should be not only on whether property maintenance has been done—usually it has not—but also on its staff taking an extra role and identifying the problems of people with a mental illness or disability or people who are acting in a dysfunctional and disruptive way. The staff should be proactive in seeking intervention to provide the support services that are required and available. That would negate problems caused to other tenants in the complex.
The Government must approach this issue in a far more comprehensive way than the simplistic amendments in the bill; otherwise we will continue to have these sorts of problems. A fair proportion of the public housing issues that arise are directly related to people with mental illness and/or an intellectual disability. When I was with the Department of Housing I moved around different areas of the State and Sydney, and I saw communities where mental illness and disability factors are not as high but where there is a more, if you like, dysfunctional and antisocial approach. Tenants in one suburb, which I will not name because I do not want to brand it, sat down with me and told me they were being intimidated by department tenants who were selling drugs in their area. All that the tenants who met with me wanted was to live in their houses in a peaceful manner.
Antisocial and criminal activities such as dealing in drugs might be appropriately dealt with through this acceptable behaviour agreement, but those activities are only a minority of the problems. When this bill finally becomes law I do not believe there will be a remarkable turnaround or change because of what this Government has done. This is the simple stuff that the Carr Government has become all too associated with. The bill will not solve the bigger and more complex issues of social organisation, restoring a sense of community, and working with dysfunctional people to make them a partner with the department and more reasonable people. This is simplistic rubbish that the Carr Government delivers as a guise or pretence to try to resolve some of the major issues in our communities, but it will not achieve it. The Government should think about having a co-ordinated whole-of-government approach and making the Department of Housing the gateway for providing co-ordinated services so we can support those in the community who need it.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [12.25 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak to the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill, which deals with the important issue of public housing, which I am regularly asked to deal with in my electorate office. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 to allow for a graduated range of responses to ensure that public housing tenants meet their obligations under their tenancy agreements and are accountable for their behaviour, as well as for that of others living in their property.
Specifically, the bill makes four significant changes to the Act. The first is the recognition of the renewable tenancy policy, which allows the Department of Housing to nominate a further fixed term upon the expiration of a current fixed term tenancy agreement. Second, it introduces acceptable behaviour agreements—the most important part of this legislation. These are written agreements between a tenant and the department in which the tenant agrees not to engage in specified antisocial behaviour. Third, it places the onus on the tenant if they refuse to sign, or if they breach, an acceptable behaviour agreement, to demonstrate to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal why that tenancy agreement should not be terminated. Last, it gives the tribunal the power to consider the history of a tenancy agreement when considering an application for termination, and it provides greater protection for the staff of the Department of Housing who may be subjected to sustained and threatening abuse with regard to not speaking about particular tenants.
I concur with previous speakers who said that most Department of Housing tenants act in a responsible manner, despite many of them coping with often quite serious social disadvantages. The argument for this amending legislation is that antisocial behaviour in public housing can be a significant issue that other public housing tenants have to put up with. There must be stronger sanctions against the minority of public housing tenants who seek to destroy public property and literally destroy the quality of life of other public housing tenants. Public housing is a very essential service that we provide for socially disadvantaged people, but it is not a right, and antisocial behaviour agreements are necessary to provide appropriate sanctions. Tenants in private tenancy agreements can be evicted for antisocial behaviour, contrary to the terms of the lease, and the same should apply to public housing tenants.
The onus of proof is to be reversed for tenants who refuse to sign, or who breach, an acceptable behaviour agreement. That is, tenants who do not behave in their premises will have to show why their tenancy should continue, rather than the Department of Housing having to show why the tenancy should be terminated, which is the opposite of normal tenancy arrangements. By their behaviour or refusal to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement, an individual who behaves antisocially could punish other family members who are listed on the lease. What happens if an individual who is not on the lease, but is closely associated with people who are on the lease, engages in antisocial behaviour? The Minister should look at that issue. I have such an issue in my electorate. I visited a Department of Housing site and spoke to a number of tenants. The husband and father of the people on the lease is alleged to have seriously threatened other adults and children. Doors have been kicked in, wilful damage has been occasioned to premises, and other disruptive and allegedly violent behaviour has been occurring.
What is to happen in such a circumstance? The tenants are afraid of retribution should they go to police and give evidence. They are afraid to do anything that would give Department of Housing staff cause to intervene. I have asked the tenants to ring me and my office so I can keep a log of the issues raised so I can try to assist them to stop this behaviour by this person visiting a tenant. That person is creating a lot of unhappiness and fear among other residents. People with a mental illness or a disability may also be disadvantaged, and they must be considered in the context of this amendment.
There is a long wait for public housing—a problem that has not been adequately addressed by the Government. I am aware of considerable mismanagement in the placement of people. Some older people have sought my help in being placed in premises where the tenants are of retirement age, so they might enjoy life during their retirement. Instead, they have become pseudo crisis workers because other tenants, through no fault of their own—they have a mental health problem or an intellectual disability—are not being properly managed by other service providers. The older residents are on a 24-hour watch. That is totally unacceptable. The Opposition will not oppose this amendment, but I ask the Minister to address the serious concerns I have raised.
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [12.33 p.m.]: I support the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill. In particular, in light of recent events that have occurred in the electorate of Bega, I support the acceptable behaviour agreements that the bill introduces. In that respect I refer to an incident that took place on 10 June involving a number of young people living in public housing in Woodbridge Avenue and Evans Street, Moruya. Local police were called to deal with what was described as a domestic dispute that got out of hand and resulted in these young people engaging in very serious activities. It resulted in one police vehicle being badly damaged and another being written off, and it exposed the police to considerable danger. Basically, they were dealing with a riot.
It is obvious to all and sundry that the alcoholism, drug-taking, and other antisocial behaviour engaged in by those young people results from the policy that concentrated public housing in particular streets in Moruya. I have called on the Department of Housing to commence selling off a number of these properties. The community and, for that matter, the relevant local government agencies, must respond to this social unrest very quickly. We cannot accept excuses for the antisocial behaviour of these young people, who have been identified and known to government agencies for a long time. It is obvious to all that the current system of dealing with this behaviour has not worked. The Department of Housing and the Department of Aboriginal Housing have failed those families and communities. I reiterate the need for the Department of Housing to sell off a number of these properties. Even if they are sold at lower than the market price, that would at least provide an opportunity for someone to move into a house they will regard as their home and care for as their own.
I believe that the public housing policy is behind this riot. One only has to door-knock residents in the area to know they have been speaking to the Department of Housing about the families involved in this antisocial behaviour and that the department does not have the mechanism to deal with the problem. The introduction of acceptable behaviour agreements—written agreements between tenants and the department—will go some way towards solving the problems caused by such antisocial behaviour. My view is that some of the families living in these Moruya streets must be relocated away from each other. We cannot allow young people to come together there and cause very serious social unrest. This was brought home to me when I knocked on the door of an 80-year-old lady who lives in elderly housing. She said the situation is out of control, and she showed me a plastic bag full of projectiles that had been pelted at her home. She had been constantly asking the Department of Housing to put security doors on her property, but the department has not responded. The Department of Housing has a lot to answer for.
I am concerned about the application of this bill to the Aboriginal Housing Office and to Aboriginal housing generally. The Government must clarify that application. The bill should apply across the board: acceptable behaviour agreements should be in place for all who are in State-provided homes, Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals alike. We can no longer continue, particularly in communities such as Moruya, to tolerate antisocial behaviour. A number of Aboriginal juveniles potentially face a life in prison unless all agencies concerned, including the Department of Housing, come together to look for innovative solutions to these problems. One suggestion is that each night a patrol bus should patrol streets in which public housing is located to deal with problems. If the Department of Housing had not concentrated these homes in a particular area in the first place, some of these measures would not be necessary.
Last Friday I convened a meeting with the Mayor of Eurobodalla shire, Fergus Thomson, Tom Slockee, an Aboriginal community leader, Mick Fuller from NSW Police, and local magistrate David Halpin. We decided it would be necessary to convene another meeting at which relevant estate agencies and representatives of public housing would be invited to workshop ideas. They must respond to community calls for these homes to be sold off. I hope the bill will go some way to guaranteeing that agreements are in place to ensure acceptable behaviour. If people do not behave, they should forgo the privilege of residing in public housing. It is not fair that the broader community has to tolerate drunken thugs in their streets. The Government should not continue to provide a roof over the heads of Department of Housing tenants if the department has no mechanism to ensure that their tenants curb their behaviour.
The behaviour at Moruya—which resulted in four young Aboriginal men being put into cells and bail being refused—has gone far and beyond any acceptable norm. It is an indication that we can no longer have a revolving door between juvenile detention and the outside world. That is changing neither the attitude nor the behaviour of those concerned. The community enjoys relative peace while these young people are detained, but people are sick of experiencing the same problems when they are released a few months down the track. These young people belong to a number of families that are causing a lot of disruption. It will take bold community leadership to work through these problems and recognise that the Government must step in. The community has had enough. I would hate to see the problems continue until someone was seriously hurt.
At Moruya, young people in a public housing area took to two police vehicles with steel poles, fence palings, bricks, and bottles. The police were under an enormous strain, and someone could have been hurt seriously, if not killed. It was completely unacceptable. I commend Eurobodalla Shire Council and the leadership provided by Fergus Thomson, the mayor, on the implementation of alcohol-free zones around the area. If public housing was not so concentrated perhaps those alcohol-free zones would not be necessary. The Department of Housing will require its tenants to enter into acceptable behaviour agreements, but it should reassess its policy of concentrating properties in certain areas. I recognise the need to provide greater protection for Department of Housing staff, who are constantly subjected to sustained and threatening abuse by tenants. The message in the bill is simple: agencies will be empowered to deal with continued and prolonged unacceptable behavioural patterns.
The same process must be in place for Aboriginal housing to ensure consistency. We must provide innovative solutions for the problems in Moruya. Last week I wrote to the Premier and called for the reinstatement of funding to the Department of Juvenile Justice to undertake a program called PASS, a program that coupled sport and education for young indigenous people in Moruya. I reiterate my call for the reinstatement of that funding to enable Mark Bella from the Department of Juvenile Justice in Batemans Bay to continue the program. As one of the community leaders said last week, we must think outside the square. Last week Ron Snape, a commercial fisherman in the Tilba area, put to me the need for a diversionary employment program for coastal Kooris to enable them to participate in the commercial fishing industry.
Again, we are talking about attitudes among government agencies. The attitude of the Department of Fisheries towards indigenous people has been a problem and should be explored. But we can only do that if government agencies work together. The Department of Housing should not be isolated from the Attorney General's Department, the Department of Juvenile Justice or, as in this case, the Department of Fisheries. We should look forward to developing programs to ensure that the Department of Housing plays a proactive part, but it will not be able to do that unless we have in place the measures in the bill. Antisocial behaviour in public housing must be dealt with through legislation. Beyond that we must ensure that those working in the area have the power to deal with antisocial behaviour of tenants.
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [12.46 p.m.]: The Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill will amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1987, the principal Act, to enable the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation to declare that a public housing tenancy agreement is subject to a specified fixed term, to enable the corporation to request a public housing tenant to give an undertaking not to engage in antisocial behaviour, to provide for the termination of the tenant's public housing tenancy agreement if the tenant refuses to enter into, or seriously or persistently breaches, an acceptable behaviour agreement, and to provide for the termination of a public housing tenancy agreement if the tenant severely or persistently threatens, or abuses, intimidates or harasses, any member of staff of the Department of Housing.
Public Housing would be the biggest issue that every member in this place would deal with, so everyone is pleased that we are debating such a bill, which is well overdue. I am sure that employees and staff of the Department of Housing, NSW Police, and the Department of Community Services would be happy with it. There are in excess of 120,000 public housing tenants in this State. The department provides stable and affordable housing, which is a fundamental requirement for all people. Each and every one of us would appreciate that without housing it is impossible to hold down a job, stay healthy, get an education, or maintain family and community relationships. The majority of people look after their public housing premises and appreciate them, but there seems to be an attitude among some that if you are in public housing you have every right in the world but, sadly, you do not have to protect your housing.
Mr Tony Stewart: What, sadly?
Mr THOMAS GEORGE: No. They appreciate it, and it is great. However, it is the actions of the minority that ruin it not only for people in the public housing but also for the neighbourhood in general. If a tenant fails or refuses to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement, the corporation may by notice terminate the tenancy agreement. The notice to terminate must specify the grounds for the notice, namely, that the tenant has failed or refused to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement as requested by the corporation, or the tenant has seriously or persistently breached the terms of the acceptable behaviour agreement. If that happens, the corporation has the right to refer the matter to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. However, that provision will not solve the problem. Sadly, in my office I have a thick file of problems associated with unsuccessful attempts by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal to remove tenants from their houses.
An education process is needed. Tenants who cause problems create a bad environment in the neighbourhood; they have no respect for their neighbours. If they are evicted by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, where are they to go? The private rental market will not accept them without references. We all say that problem tenants should be evicted, but where are they to go? That is why I strongly believe that an education process is needed. About five minutes ago I rang my office and asked my staff to pick out randomly four or five newspaper clippings relating to public housing estates. The clippings had the headlines "It's like the Bronx: Residents in crisis talk with police", "Residents fear for their safety", and "Residents afraid".
Mr Tony Stewart: The clippings just happened to come off the fax?
Mr THOMAS GEORGE: No, I rang the girls in my office and asked them to give me a random cross-section of clippings in relation to this problem. The article headed "Residents afraid" stated, "House Wrecked: Senseless vandalism, where walls were kicked in at a vacated Housing Commission residence", which was in Lismore. It is sad that these things are happening, but all honourable members face these problems every day. Other headlines were "Dept moves to ease fears in housing complex", "Crime Central", and "Crime needs longer-term solutions". In my area there was a problem with a housing estate, and after nearly twelve months the residents, the police, the department, the council and I we were able to come up with a solution. Another community worked together to fix a problem in another public housing estate. In a letter to the Northern Star, Mr Peter Harbord, the co-ordinator of the Residents Support Group, McDermott Court, wrote:
On August 8, 2002, The Northern Star reported on the adverse life-style experienced by public housing tenants at McDermott Court, a Department of Housing complex in Uralba Street, Lismore.
The adverse living conditions at that time were break-ins, theft, bad language, drug and alcohol problems also intimidation.
Now, 11 months later, with the co-operation of the Department of Housing, Lismore, those adverse conditions, in the majority of cases, have been rectified.
I would therefore on behalf of all the tenants of McDermott Court like to thank The Northern Star for your active reporting of this social issue, the police, who now regularly patrol this area, and Snr Const Hogan for his advice on home and personal security, the staff of the Department of Housing, Lismore, who found the time to listen and act on behalf of the tenants of McDermott Court …
Once again, thank you all.
In that case the community worked together to fix a major problem through an educative process. The bill will not fix the problems tomorrow, because those who cause the problems need to be educated. That process cannot be done within the neighbourhood because it would interfere with good neighbourhood policy. We need to work with those who cause the problems, because if they are evicted by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal where will they go? They will go down the road and cause further problems, and we need to be conscious of that. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill, which is long overdue.
Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [12.55 p.m.]: This is an important bill. For many years the Department of Housing has had a substantial and essentially positive record in public housing. It has undertaken major projects in Western Sydney that created towns, communities and the necessary infrastructure to support them. There has been a history of people moving to those communities from all parts of Sydney. Over many years people from all parts of Sydney, many from the inner-city areas, moved to the new residential areas of Seven Hills, Lalor Park, Green Valley, Dundas Valley and Mount Druitt. The majority of people who moved there have made a worthwhile contribution to the community. Many years ago my family was involved in the bread delivery business in the Dundas Valley and Ermington areas. The majority of people here were absolutely wonderful; they were responsible and pleased to be given the opportunity by the government of the day to own their own homes and create some stability in their lives.
However, as with all communities, it is not possible to say that was so in every case. There was concern about younger children growing up in areas with which they were geographically unfamiliar. Consequently, a number of social problems arose. It is fair to say that those social problems have been given a lot more publicity than the positive side of life in public housing. For that reason, because of the actions of a minority, ill-informed assessments have often been made about particular public housing areas. The bill acknowledges that those problems continue, as they do in all communities. We cannot claim that these problems occur only in properties owned by the Department of Housing. In more recent years there has been a trend to fragment Department of Housing property development. There is no longer the massive development such as those at Green Valley, Lalor Park, Dundas Valley and Mount Druitt. Public housing is now integrated amongst privately owned dwellings. That worthwhile approach has proved to have additional advantages.
The bill is aimed at people who do the wrong thing. Tenants in private rental accommodation have to be responsible. They do not own the properties they live in; they have a responsibility to look after them and not to interfere with their neighbours or cause undue hardship to them. This legislation will enable the Government to require certain standards of behaviour from those who are not inclined to treat properties with care, or who harass, affect and make life generally unpleasant for their neighbours. In some respects this important legislation will overcome a number of antisocial and behavioural problems faced by Department of Housing tenants. The legislation, which is fairly simple in nature, will enable the department to undertake certain proceedings to obtain vacant possession or to terminate a tenancy when an application under new section 57A is made to what was formerly the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.
Under new section 35A the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation may request a tenant to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement. If a tenant who is living in a cottage, a home or a flat is causing a problem, the department can now request that tenant to do the right thing, that is, to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement and to cease engaging in specified antisocial behaviour. If a tenant refuses to enter into such an agreement, his or her tenancy can be terminated on application to the tribunal. If a tenant who has entered into such an agreement subsequently breaches the terms of that agreement, his or her tenancy can be terminated on application to the tribunal. The tribunal would then have to determine whether the tenant had seriously or persistently breached the terms of the agreement.
Under the residential tenancy legislation the onus of proof in all applications is on the applicant, usually the landlord. This amending legislation deliberately reverses the onus of proof. If a tenant refuses to sign, or is in breach of, an acceptable behaviour agreement—an agreement in which the tenant agrees to cease engaging in specified antisocial behaviour—he or she has to prove why his or her tenancy should be continued rather than terminated. That is contrary to normal tenancy arrangements. In these circumstances that is not unreasonable. The Parliamentary Secretary said in the second reading speech:
This reversal of the onus for antisocial tenants is necessary because there is a history of cases in which tenants have provided evidence against their antisocial neighbours, only to find themselves further victimised if the courts decide anything less than an eviction is warranted.
If a neighbour dobs in someone that he or she believes to be antisocial or causing distress and harm in a community, and an order is not made for that person's eviction, that night they would both have to return to the same premises. That situation is intolerable and should not be allowed. It means that no-one will co-operate with the department or make a complaint. If the department does not establish a case, those who are involved will have to return to live in the same building. For that reason I suggest that the onus of proof provisions be retained. A reversal of the onus of proof will apply only when a tenant has seriously or persistently breached an unacceptable behaviour agreement; it will not apply to other matters before the tribunal. The onus of proof is not reversed for those who are disadvantaged or suffering a mental disability. Complex mental health problems are causing the community more distress than any other health issue and few remedies are available to the Government to deal with such problems.
Some people who live in Department of Housing properties have mental disabilities or other psychological problems that contribute to their conduct. One might well ask why those problems were not assessed before those people were put into a block of units and upset the residents there. Those concerns have been expressed by constituents in my electorate office. For years they have lived happily in a Department of Housing block of units until a new tenant suffering from some kind of mental disability upset the ambience, and their lifestyle and quality of life were eroded, making it intolerable for them to continue to live in the block. That should not be allowed to happen. Although the bill reverses the onus of proof, as I have said, it is the responsibility of the department to ensure that, whenever possible, problems of that sort are avoided. However, some will always slip through the net. People with mental disabilities should not be placed in a block of units in which they can cause stress and concern to adjacent residents. The department has a duty of care to those residents and must look at that issue carefully.
Mr MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [1.08 p.m.]: The Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill has several main objects. First, it gives recognition to the renewable tenancies policy under the Act and it allows the Department of Housing to nominate a further fixed term upon the expiration of a current fixed-term tenancy agreement. Second, it introduces acceptable behaviour agreements. These are written agreements between a tenant and the department in which the tenant agrees to cease engaging in specific antisocial behaviour. Third, it places the onus of proof on the tenant to demonstrate to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal why, if he or she refuses to sign or breaches an acceptable behaviour agreement, the tenancy agreement should not be terminated. Fourth, the tribunal is given the power to consider the history of the tenant's tenancy agreement when considering an application for termination. Fifth, it gives greater protection to Department of Housing staff who may be subjected to sustained threats and abuse. From time to time all members, some more than others, have had to deal with Department of Housing tenants and the problems with which they are confronted.
I state at the outset that the great majority of public housing tenants in my electorate are wonderful people. They are houseproud, they are proud of their community, they work with local schools, they contribute to society, their homes are maintained to a wonderful standard, they are proud of their gardens, and they enjoy the amenities in the suburbs in which their housing is provided and for which they pay a fee. I refer to several points made in the "Legislation Review Digest". Paragraph 28 states:
The Committee is of the view that forced evictions generally conflict with the fundamental right of a person to adequate housing.
Paragraph 29 states:
However, the Committee is also of the view that, while the amendments provide for forced evictions, they do so only in exceptional and justifiable circumstances where the behaviour of the evicted tenant prevents others from fully enjoying their fundamental right to adequate housing.
I shall read onto the record some correspondence I received recently to give honourable members an idea of the problems that public housing tenants face. As previous speakers in this debate have said, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, they raised concerns about mental illness and highlighted several other points that I will touch on later. A lady who shall remain nameless wrote to me to say:
I would like to bring to your attention a continuation of the dire circumstances which I have advised your Dept. Since my last report to your Agency I was recently assaulted whilst walking home from church … with my 3 young children. I was approached [by a resident] who is a regular visitor [of my neighbour]. Please see attached copy of pending AVO …
I am taking the time to write this letter, as it seems a necessity to do so for the protection of my young family. We have 3 children … My family has only lived in our house for 13 months as we used to live in a dept house [in another suburb], but had to move because of ongoing problems we encountered in that neighbourhood …
On Thursday 29th … a young family moved in consisting of a mother, her de facto boyfriend and a young child. Before this family moved in to our neighbourhood it was a safe and peaceful place for people to raise a family in, but this is no longer the case.
Upon reading the latest edition of "Your Home" titled working together to remove antisocial behaviour. This article because a great interest to us as we are trying to deal with this everyday within our house. The dwelling [next door] has now become the meeting place for the "hoodlums" of [the suburb] and its surrounding suburbs. There is known to be at least 15 people in the house and back shed at any one time playing excessively loud music, drinking alcohol and smoking their drugs in complete visibility to others and myself. As well as this they are constantly revving their cars and beeping their horns and screaming extremely foul language in the late hours of the night & early morning, sticking fingers up and swearing out and poking their fingers … they keep teasing our family dogs and making them bark late in the night, which has resulted in complaints from other tenants.
I witnessed a woman who was visiting their residence at the time try to commit suicide on the front lawn. I have also witnessed 2 separate knife attacks by people who were visitors of the residence, they do burnouts on my lawn, and they attempted to burn down a tree on my front lawn. All the abovementioned have been formally addressed to the police and your Dept.
Each morning we have to pick up rubbish from their previous night of partying, articles such as beer bottles and spirit cans, bongs, broken glass and wrappers.
I have notified several agencies regarding this matter …
They are the kinds of local problems that members of Parliament must deal with. I understand this legislation aims to address some of those concerns. However, I return to paragraph 28 of the "Legislation Review Digest", which states:
… forced evictions generally conflict with the fundamental right of a person to adequate housing.
I firmly believe people have a fundamental obligation to the community in which they live. The proposals in this bill will strengthen the power of Department of Housing staff, with whom I have a close professional and amiable working relationship, to remit matters to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. I pay credit to our local Department of Housing staff, who do a difficult job in difficult circumstances, and their regional manager. They have always worked closely with me to address problems such as those I have described. They need legislation such as this to give them stronger tools. I have absolutely no problem with using all provisions in this legislation against people who destroy community amenity to ensure that they alter their behaviour or find somewhere else to live. I think we are sometimes far too soft on such people. The great majority of citizens are peaceful family people whose living environment should not be disrupted by those who engage in antisocial behaviour.
I turn to the circumstance in which an individual who engages in antisocial behaviour may be punished. According to my reading of the bill, the provision for making a family or family member comply with reasonable standards of behaviour is a last resort. However, it is necessary because certain public housing tenants can cause grief and disruption. It is obviously the ultimate responsibility of the family concerned, who have the lease in their name, to take action. If this bill helps families to do that, I have no problem with it.
I am concerned about mental health issues. We all know that people who recover from mental illness can become unwell again. For a myriad of reasons I am keen to hear the Parliamentary Secretary at the table, the honourable member for Bankstown, detail how people with mental illness will be dealt with under this bill. We must acknowledge that such people sometimes cannot control their actions or their speech. I would like further explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary as to how the department intends to manage the wellbeing and housing needs of people with mental illness. As more treatment facilities close, more people with mental health issues are being integrated into the community. That is a good move. However, we must ensure that such people are not disenfranchised or disadvantaged by the Government's policies. Opinions differ about reversing the onus of proof. However, according to my reading of the bill, that tool will be used only as a last resort.
This bill deals with public housing. I would like to know whether the bill or the amendments it contains will apply also to Aboriginal housing. The Aboriginal Housing Office manages several properties in my electorate. There are some wonderful tenants in our community of whom we are immensely proud. However, trouble sometimes occurs in public housing complexes. Is the Government considering applying the amendments to the Aboriginal Housing Act and to housing suppliers—such as the Sisters Housing Enterprise Inc. that temporarily houses women in distress—whose services are called upon from time to time? Will these rules apply to those organisations? What is the Government's time frame for considering their extension? All people must be treated equally; that is fair and right. We must not have one set of rules for one group of people and another set for another group. If people are to live in harmony they must abide by common rules. This is important legislation and I look forward to seeing its results in the future.
Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.18 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who contributed to this important debate on the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill. It is important to reiterate that the Government's primary goal is not to interfere with people's daily activities or to evict tenants. Rather, our aim is to help those who are engaging in problematic behaviour to change that behaviour and sustain their tenancies. These measures provide a clear policy and legislative framework for implementing an antisocial behaviour strategy. The Government is putting in place a number of new checks on the department to make the department's operations more transparent and accountable. Above all, with those measures the Government seeks to give tenants a clear sense of the consequences of antisocial behaviour and an awareness of a range of opportunities to change their behaviour in order to sustain their tenancies.
We need to balance the entitlement to secure housing with the need for tenants to be accountable for their behaviour. The honourable member for Ballina raised concerns about persons who suffer from mental illness being adequately covered in the bill. Under the provisions of this bill there will be far greater opportunity to monitor persons suffering from mental illness or behavioural problems and to take measures to sustain their tenancies through the support of specialist response teams. This will assist the Department of Housing and other agencies to identify tenants who have problematic behaviour and refer them for assessment and support.
The onus of proof was referred to, and it is important to note that there is still an obligation on the Department of Housing to present a case to the satisfaction of the tribunal. The tenants will then need to demonstrate to the tribunal that they had not breached their undertakings under the acceptable behaviour assessment. Importantly, next week human services agencies, including NSW Health, the Centre for Mental Health, NSW Police, the Department of Community Services, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, Aboriginal Affairs, Education, and the Aboriginal Housing Office, will meet to discuss the piloting of the specialist response teams in a whole-of-government approach to meeting concerns about how the policy might be pursued.
As with any new legislative provisions, a policy regarding the implementation of the new measures will be prepared. The policy will provide guidelines to ensure that the measures are used appropriately and effectively to avoid any unintended consequences. The department will develop and provide training for client service staff to enable them to effectively and sensitively implement the measures outlined in the bill, and to mitigate against abuse of acceptable behaviour agreements at a local level. For example, it will be important to understand when it will be appropriate to ask a tenant to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement; to understand that these circumstances are likely to be infrequent; to realise that acceptable behaviour agreements are not to be used to threaten tenants, and that they are tools for tenancy management that will enable departmental staff to assist tenants to sustain their tenancies; and to understand when it may be appropriate to make referrals to these specialist response teams or other specialist support services. The Government is committed to ongoing consultation with stakeholders about the operation of the measures. I strongly commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr John Mills) left the chair at 1.23 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:18 : Update this page