Page 467 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991

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

this legislation puts forward, that the board itself is the body that in the first instance should set about resolving disputes. Of course, it is only the first step, and they could well wind up in a court as a back-up measure.

I think the fact that we have only one per cent of disputes coming to that point at the moment is actually a cause for concern, not a cause for relaxation, because I doubt whether very many of us here have never been in a position where we have been approached by somebody who has had a problem with the landlord and has looked for some kind of resolution. I think most of us have been approached, or know of somebody. Over the last 10 or 15 years I can think of many examples of people talking about feeling that they had been badly done by because the bond had been ripped off by the landlord, or by the agent who was looking after the landlord's affairs; and I can think of many landlords who have said that their agent had actually paid out when they felt that the damage that had been done by the tenant was well in excess of the bond that they were holding.

The disputes were there and people have, in fact, worn the loss. That is not a fair situation. In the vast majority of cases that I can think of it is, in fact, the tenants who have been most vulnerable, and it is the tenants who have had very little comeback, and have not known what to do. If the bond is held by a Rental Bond Board, then it is quite clear that they have to go back to the Rental Bond Board. It is easier for them to say, "Hey, it is not fair", and for the Rental Bond Board to have a look at it and to set about resolving the dispute, preferably in a manner that is positive and that looks for a compromise between the view of the landlord and the view of the tenant.

I think that this Bill offers quite a number of very positive things. However, there is one area of concern. I draw your attention particularly to clause 13(5). On a number of occasions recently, Mr Connolly, in particular, has made it his business to talk about keeping legislation simple and in simple language. I draw his attention to clause 13(5), which is almost impossible to read:

If a rental bond -

(a) exempt or excluded from the operation of subsection (1); or

(b) exempt or excluded from the operation of subsection (2);

pursuant to section 26, subsequently ceases to be so exempt or excluded, this section shall, in respect of that rental bond, be deemed to be amended -

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