Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2008 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 5 March 2008) . . Page.. 509 ..
I have an excellent working relationship with the AMA in the ACT. I meet them frequently. Every six weeks I meet them to talk with them about things that can be done to improve the ACT health system. I would have to say that the ACT branch of the AMA are far more relevant to the ACT health system than the federal AMA taking part in a federal election campaign.
MR MULCAHY: My question is to the Minister for Housing. Minister, I have been informed by residents of Red Hill and Griffith that there are significant concerns about repeated unruly behaviour by a minority of residents in public housing complexes. Have you taken any action to protect other tenants and the surrounding community against public housing tenants in Griffith or Red Hill who consistently behave in an unruly, disruptive or illegal manner?
MR HARGREAVES: I thank Mr Mulcahy for the question. I can’t respond, of course—
Mr Pratt: And you could thank me for actually writing it, Mr Hargreaves.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, I would encourage Mr Mulcahy to continue to prevent Mr Pratt from making a fool of himself, and I know he has his work cut out for him. I can’t actually respond in detail about a specific case. As you know, Mr Speaker, we do not discuss individual cases here, but I am happy to talk about individual cases with members on a case-by-case basis.
In general, around the Red Hill-Griffith area, we do recognise that there are disruptive people. I totally reject the notion that it is only public housing tenants that are disruptive people in that particular area. Unlike those opposite, the government has a range of strategies that come into play with regard to disruptive tenancies, and each of them comes into play at various stages. In all tenancy agreements it is recognised that a tenant will respect neighbours’ ability to have a quiet amenity and quiet enjoyment of their area. When that does not happen, those opposite make the accusation—and I accept that Mr Mulcahy is not one of those people, by the way—that the government is responsible, as landlord, for the behaviour of these people. It should also be noted that I do not see a requirement from those opposite to hold private landlords responsible for the behaviour of their tenants.
Mrs Burke: They operate; you don’t.
MR HARGREAVES: Mrs Burke can bleat all she likes; she can’t get away from that. In fact, she is a bleatologist of the first order.
With respect to the processes that we bring to bear, they involve a visit to disruptive tenants by our housing managers, who do a number of things. They draw the tenants’ attention to the clause in the tenancy agreement which requires them to respect the quiet amenity of those around them. It depends, of course, on the nature of the disruption. Sometimes it is noise; sometimes it is illegal behaviour. Quite often, it