COMMENT: With half of the residents of apartment blocks being tenants, the NSW government’s Bill introduced last week to help renters who are victims of domestic violence is applauded and welcomed by Flat Chat.

The proposals are intended to improve the security and safety of women (in the vast majority of cases) trying to escape from a violent or abusive relationship.

They include:

• Allowing locks to be changed without the landlord’s approval if the alleged perpetrator has been legally excluded from the property.
• Requiring permission from renters before images or videos of the property can be published in advertising in order to reduce the risk of them being tracked down by perpetrators.
• Allowing Fair Trading to order that listings be removed from residential tenancy databases if the victim can provide evidence of domestic abuse.
• Allow NCAT to decide whether any damage to a property was likely to have been caused by a perpetrator during an incident of domestic abuse, so that the victims are not liable for repairs.
• It’s sad that we need to do this but it’s good that it’s being done. However, there does seem to be a potential unintended consequence in all this, as pointed out by one writer to the Flat Chat Forum.

Now, it in no way equates with the pain and suffering of the victims, but aren’t the landlords being expected to carry more than their share of the burden when things go badly wrong for their tenants.

Having locks changed without their permission is no big deal, but the existing rules on victims being able to break their leases without penalty have financial consequences.

And not wanting images of the exteriors of their homes flashing up in an internet search is understandable, but it does make it harder to find a new tenant.

Meanwhile, if there is damage that was not caused by the victim, there’s no way it should come out of their bond. That makes sense. But who compensates the landlord?

As I said, in terms of suffering there is no comparison; it’s not even in the same ballpark. But wouldn’t it be an idea to keep landlords onside as much as possible?

I think women who are in that situation need all the assistance they can get, and a glowing reference from a property owner who is glad to help any way they can could make the next step easier.

Better that than leaving disgruntled owners who might start excluding members of certain age groups, social classes or even races as potential tenants because they don’t want any more hassle.

A bit more thought would not have gone amiss. As a society, we should be helping those who need it most, but the cost should be borne by all of us, not just the unlucky few who happen to be next in the queue.

Don’t get me wrong, if it came to a choice between real physical harm to women and their kids, and some financial pain to property owners, I know where the chips would fall for me.

But it’s not an either-or decision. The government could clearly do more to encourage landlords to help rather than effectively penalising them for having unfortunate tenants.