Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1624 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

people who have immense difficulty, for whatever reason, with operating properly in a reasonably civilised society, who have no regard for the rights of their neighbours, who have maybe no concept of what they should do, which is sad.

There are the steps Ms Tucker talked about as to how that can be improved. Nevertheless, we do not live in a perfect world. There will always be incredibly difficult people who have no regard whatsoever for the rights of others. Whilst it is difficult, it is terribly important that the rights of ordinary Housing Trust tenants who may be affected by those people are protected, upheld and, if need be, enforced, as they should be, by both the tenancy agreement and things like the UN covenant that Mrs Burke's read out. I would encourage the minister to ensure that that continues to occur and, where need be, is enhanced and perhaps done more expeditiously, if possible.

I think it was timely of Mrs Burke to bring this motion to the Assembly. I thank her for doing so. I am very happy to know that this motion will be passed, as it should be.

MS DUNDAS (11.55): Mr Speaker, because Canberrans often live very close to their neighbours, particularly in medium-density and high-density housing, some invasion of privacy is the norm. I expect that we have all experienced problems caused by disruptive neighbours at some point and I can appreciate the frustration and distress caused by noisy and inconsiderate neighbours. But working out the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable impacts can sometimes be quite difficult.

An occasional noisy party next door that keeps you awake most of the night is probably within the bounds of reasonable intrusion, as is a neighbour doing some building work early in the morning. Losing sleep several nights a week due to a noisy neighbour probably is not reasonable, but there is a grey area between these two extremes.

Although ACT Housing tenants and private tenants have a right to expect action from ACT Housing where an ACT Housing neighbour is making their life a misery, the option of eviction should not be pursued lightly. The right to shelter, as has been stated a number of times in this debate, is a basic human right, and homelessness is strongly associated with poor health, drug problems, gambling addictions, poor educational outcomes and a range of other problems. I understand that ACT Housing is well aware of their role as a landlord of last resort for many people who cannot find accommodation in the private sector. I believe that they do their best to be fair to all their tenants.

The kind of behaviour that causes problems for neighbours is often the result of mental health problems or addictions. Directing resources to helping problem tenants get their lives in order often could be a much better approach than a heavy-handed process to punish bad tenants. Eviction needs to be retained as a last resort, as I believe it is at present. But evicting tenants can just make situations much more worse. I say that in response to the debate that has gone on today regarding Mrs Burke's motion.

The motion itself asks the minister for housing to ensure that the rights and obligations of ACT Housing tenants are protected, upheld and enforced in relation to

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .