Page 482 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
do not think that should ever be an extraordinary concession when the Opposition is introducing private members' business. What we had hoped was that the Government would look at this proposal and come back with some detailed criticisms or suggestions for amendments which we would have been happy to look at in a constructive manner. But, not a bit of it; there was just a high-handed dismissal, and a description of this Bill as a political stunt. Then there were some fairly superior suggestions that it was full of flaws; it was full of technical faults. The Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation Committee did not seem to think so. He was not able to tell us where those technical faults were, but the Assembly is presumably expected to take the Attorney's word for that. If they were pointed out to me, I would be happy to accept them; but I think it was a mere puff without any substance.
Mr Speaker, of most concern to me in the Attorney's criticism was his suggestion that we had merely copied the New South Wales Bill. We said at the outset that this Bill was based on the New South Wales legislation, but that it made a fairly fundamental departure from it by way of a greatly simplified dispute resolution process. The Attorney's speech was replete with references to separate courts of disputation and complex dispute resolution methods.
That may be a description of the New South Wales Bill, which does set up tribunals and fairly complex appellate mechanisms; it is certainly not the case for the dispute resolution method contained in our Bill in clause 17(11), where we have given the Rental Bond Board power to hear an application to resolve a dispute "in such manner as the Board considers best suited to that purpose". And we have given it power to "proceed to hear and determine the application in the absence of any or both parties thereto". So it has, in effect, a range of powers ranging from mediation and arbitration to, if it sees fit, conducting a hearing. It can conduct a hearing in the presence of the parties; it may choose not to.
Mr Speaker, that is an extremely simple process of dispute resolution which we thought was superior to sending the matter before the magistrates. We think it would be cheaper; we think it was a positive contribution. But there was no attempt to address that - merely, as I say, this high-handed dismissal. Of course, that was one of the points of criticism from the Law Society in its description of the Alliance working draft, which finally emerged in January, as "fundamentally flawed". It said that it was "fundamentally flawed" because the Alliance model did not provide any process of dispute resolution or any powers for the director to settle disputes. Our Bill does provide that power to settle disputes. The Law Society also made the criticism that there was no provision in the Alliance Bill that the interest generated on bonds held by the Government would be put back to the community by way of community education and consumer education services.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .