Page 466 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
headline reads reflects the attitude of the Canberra Times editorial of that particular date. I think the silliness applies to the editor in this case, rather than the particular Bill. It is silly because the editorial attempted, at that stage, to say that it is entirely unnecessary to put an extra cog in the bureaucracy as far as this goes.
I believe that, in fact, in the methodology set up by the Labor Party in this particular instance, it is quite appropriate to have a separate Rental Bond Board that is self-funding. It is an entirely appropriate way to do it. In fact, not only is it self-funding, but also, of course, the Bill provides that the interest can be used - this is under "Part 3 - Special Functions of the Board" - to establish more residential accommodation. Throughout Australia, in Sydney in particular, but also in Canberra, we have seen shortages of rental accommodation at various times, and I think using money - which at the moment tends to sit in trust accounts and benefit those who probably least need the benefiting - by putting it into a board where the benefit goes back to the community in general, is a very positive way of dealing with it. I think that on this issue the Labor Party needs to be congratulated on that idea.
The legislation works, as Mr Connolly pointed out in his speech, in line with the New South Wales legislation. I think it is quite appropriate for us, especially being so close to Queanbeyan, to have very similar legislation to New South Wales in this sort of matter, because I am sure there will be situations where people move from Queanbeyan to Canberra and Canberra to Queanbeyan, and having a similar system in this case is of some benefit, although not an overriding benefit.
If I can come back to the Canberra Times editorial, what it is suggesting, when it says, "ACT Rental-bond board is silly", is that this would be an unnecessary interference. I think the principle that they are operating on is that we ought to keep legislation to a minimum, and I have made it quite clear in this house that that is a principle that I support; however, I think there is enough evidence to indicate, contrary to what the Canberra Times editorial suggests, that we ought to take our responsibility here, as legislators, and be prepared to interfere in the relationship between tenants and the landlord when disputes occur.
In my discussions with Mr Connolly, he tells me that in about one per cent of cases the disputes actually reach a stage where an arbiter is needed. I think perhaps one of the reasons for that is that people are reluctant to go to court. When things can be settled in a Small Claims Court, many of us know that that is a fairly simple and straightforward affair; however, I think people still perceive a court as something that they are reluctant to go before, and for that reason I will support the notion that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .