17 August, 2011
Hon Dr E. Constable, MLA
Suite 4, Selby Square
271 Selby Street
CHURCHLANDS WA 6018
Dear Dr Constable,
I am writing to express my concerns about legislation that is at present being considered by the
Legislative Assembly.
I refer to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2011 which had its second reading on 18
May, 2011.
My concerns about the intentions of this bill are manifold and I am quite distressed that in our
democracy Parliament should consider the very idea of employing a group of bureaucrats to
victimise a minority group of citizens by interfering with normal, legitimate commerce.
I refer to Property Owners who, by providing homes for rent to people who cannot, or, do not want to
own a home, play an important role in progressing our society.
Property Owners pay considerable taxes and obey all necessary laws, and, by victimising them
with the proposed new laws, are likely to withdraw their properties from the rental market and
seek other forms of investment - to the detriment of Renters and Rents in general.
After reading the proposed amendments I fear that my future as a Property Owner is at risk
and I am asking you to please review the Bill with a view to rejecting it completely.
The rental properties that I own are intended to keep me independent of Government pensions and handouts
and avoid being dependant on others who may not provide sufficiently for my needs.
Working to assist my tenants keeps me happy, healthy and active and, hopefully alive a lot longer.
I am not sure why Property Owners are regarded as the problem, but it is clear to me that this is
the underlying concept in the minds of the Bureaucrats who drafted these amendments.
What justification (facts please, not irrational accusations) have been put forward to substantiate
these draconian amendments?
I note that the Minister claims that these changes are “fair, efficient and enhancing overall
clarity”. Well, it certainly makes it clear that he thinks that Property Owners are the problem
judging by the number of penalties that are to be imposed on Owners.
On the other hand, Tenants receive a government subsidy to commit any loss or damage they can manage and
support in the Local Court.
I have owned property in a small way for many years and by the Rates and Taxes I pay I have
contributed to our society, and by making property available for people to live in I have assisted
many people get on their feet and move forward with their lives.
I resent being threatened by the bureaucrats who seem to want more power for themselves and
rentors than what is fair or in balance.
I have always regarded a Tenant as a partner, and worked to ensure that we both get something
out of the arrangements.
I recognise that some property owners have a different style but problems are not confined to private owners - there was a recent case of someone living in a HomesWest property who died and was not discovered for 2 years. What good will these changes do for him?
I can give you a few examples of the sort of problems faced by property owners who invest time
and money in order to provide homes for people who either do not want to buy a home, or, who
cannot afford to do so.
1. Several years ago, my brother, Douglas, owned a house in Bayswater which he let to a
couple who owned a dog. It was quite a ferocious animal and they kept it tied up to an outside
water tap. This was done without Doug’s knowledge.
The force of the dog pulling on the tap eventually broke the pipe allowing water to escape and
flood the back yard.
Doug only found out about the problem when he got the water bill and he went to investigate
the unusually high charges.
When he entered the back yard to uncover the “leak” he was attacked by the dog and suffered severe injuries requiring many stitches and hospital treatment.
Meanwhile the water continued to leak away until he was able to recover and evict the tenants.
2. I allowed a couple newly arrived in Perth from New Zealand to live in my apartment in
Como.
Later I found out they were not married and when the female became pregnant she
returned to New Zealand alone. The male spent most of his time and money at the local Rugby
Club and became behind in his rent.
When I eventually spoke to him about his situation he agreed to find a more suitable place to live.
I spent several weeks repairing fist holes in doors, broken furniture and cleaning up congealed vomit under the bed in the second bedroom.
The social engineers in The Department of Commerce do not get to hear about this sort of stuff
because most Property Owners just want to clean up and start again with a new tenant. How do
they expect to catch up with someone who moves on to annoy another Property Owner?
How can Property Owners protect themselves against this sort of behaviour?
3. In other examples, I recently allowed a single woman - Carol Boardman - to live in a
beautiful apartment in Crawley. This was a sad lesson for me - never ever consider allowing a
single woman to occupy a property.
This one turned out to be a prostitute and was using Centre Link to subsidise her sex business.
After I was able to help her find a more suitable place I discovered carpet stains that I cannot remove and internal damage that indicated violent attacks on property and person.
4. And, what about Anna Bilic, she rented a place from an associate of mine.
Anna turned out to be a drug addicted prostitute.
She was behind in her rent and when the owner asked her about situation she disappeared leaving an appalling mess, blood stained sheets, needles, condoms and other sorts of paraphernalia.
She kept the key and after the home was cleaned up and a new tenant moved in she entered the property at night with intentions of stealing what she could find.
The Consumer Protection people do not get to hear of this sort of stuff - there is little point in a Property Owner complaining because they have no interest in Service Providers, only the “exploited underclass”.
5. There are other examples of the sort of damage inflicted upon property by incompetent tenants, more than wear and tear, like overloading the washing machine so that the spin cycle spins out of balance and shakes the machine to pieces allowing the water to run out and flood the laundry, kitchen and living areas.
6. And, today we read in the West Australian (page 13) that tenants sold a swimming pool in the house they were renting - even things that are fixed to the ground are not safe.
If you are interested, I can provide more examples of similar problems faced by Property Owners.
How does the proposed amended Act provide any protection for me against the sort of people we have in our society?
If you are thinking about supporting these amendments, please consider that legislation is supposed to be fair, not conveying a bias against legitimate business practice.
Many Acts and policies are opposed to the idea and practice of a Property Owner renting a home to someone who needs a roof over their heads.
I, like most people, used to rent a home while I saved up to buy my first home.
Where would I live if someone would not rent me a home?
If there are too many problems for Property Owners there will be fewer rental choices available.
It follows that rents will rise in order adjust to the reduced supply, and, to cope with funding solutions to the problems Property Owners have to face.
There are many examples of institutionalised problems imposed on Property Owners, often to the detriment of people wanting to rent a place to live.
One example is Land Tax. This can be best explained as follows . . .
If one owns a house and lives in it, one does not pay Land Tax.
If another is too poor to own a house and rents a house, Land Tax is levied.
This means that poorer people pay Land Tax, not the wealthier Property Owner who will be
increasing the rent to allow for the cost of the Tax.
A fairer system would tax all land, the tax rate would be less and all would pay a fairer share.
Property Owners are often confined and antagonised by Local Government, another level of bureaucracy that we face.
A really bad example of a devious and malicious attack on a Property
Owner occurred when the local Building Inspector, LEE ROWLEY of the Town of Cambridge
claimed that bricks used in the construction of a Ratepayer's home were NOT FIREPROOF.
Subsequently, MAYOR SIMON WITHERS, and most Councillors, voted to demolish the home.
This claim was simply UNTRUE and after a long and expensive struggle the SAT determined
that the Local Government decision was invalid and that the home should remain standing.
We have all witnessed the appalling criminal activities in London and other cities in the UK. I
am sure that most, if not all, of the criminals shown on TV do not own property and therefore
do not understand or value property - real estate or goods of value. The amendments to the
Residential Tenancy Act, as proposed, align the Government with these sort of people and is a
worrying situation. Most people renting homes do not own property and often unlikely to know
how to care or value it. They are encouraged, aided and abetted by the proposed Act to take
provocative and malicious actions against Property Owners simply because they can, just like
the rioting teenagers and other criminals we have witnessed in London. The destruction we saw
did not benefit anyone, but occurred only because it was thought it could be perpetrated without
pain.
Some people are like that, our society requires appropriate protection against them. The new
Act will encourage and enable this behaviour and therefore must be rejected.
I, and many others, will be grateful if you will please vote to reject this Residential Tenancies
Amendment Bill 2011. Our society needs to be fair. This draconian proposal goes too far with
bias against legitimate commerce. Please vote against the amendments.
Yours sincerely
Rod Bradley
