Page 3263 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are certainly a number of amendments which deal with the mediation process and the way it will occur in relation to the tenancy tribunal. There are also amendments which reflect the representation of various parties before the tribunal. The Government has moved to tighten those in some instances, so that people who are directly affected by particular decisions are able to come before the tribunal - and not people with just sufficient interest.
So, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are a range of very good reasons for the amendments proposed by the Attorney-General. I think there are others which address particular errors which were originally contained in the Bill, but I am happy at this stage to support the amendments as proposed by the Attorney-General.
MR MOORE (4.38): Madam Speaker, in speaking to the detail stage of this Bill, I find it interesting, to start off with, that, with 51, I think it is - or certainly over 50 - amendments to this Bill, we have not heard members stand up and say, "Well, we should reject this Bill outright because it has over 50 amendments", which would be consistent with the approach that we had this morning to a previous Bill, when that was the argument. Of course, the reason, Madam Speaker, is that it is a silly argument, and I do note that the Liberal spokesman on this Bill, Mr Humphries, is not one of the people who made that accusation about the Bill that we dealt with this morning. Mr Humphries would not be so silly as to say that just because there is an amendment to a Bill it is, therefore, a bad Bill.
On the contrary, what the amendments are designed to do is to improve the Bill and to have the role of the Assembly recognised, rather than just saying, "This is a Government Bill". Indeed, Mr Humphries is the person who said that this is a compromise Bill. It is a compromise between landlords and tenants and, Madam Speaker, I must say that I believe that the compromise goes too far the landlords' way. It is my view, Madam Speaker, that the protection that is needed for tenants is indeed what this Bill is about. It does not go far enough, and we will get onto that matter further, Madam Speaker, when we deal with my own amendments.
Mr Connolly's amendments to this Bill that he has presented at this stage, Madam Speaker, are all commendable. They certainly ensure that mediation is done more effectively. That is part of these amendments and is an important part of the process. Indeed, they also deal more effectively with a number of issues that have been raised in terms of the multiple rent review clause within the mediation process, as well as dealing with a change of terms from "landlord" - a sexist term - to the word "owner". My hope is that the word "owner" does not cause confusion when people read this Bill, because certainly some people perceive themselves as owners of a business rather than the way we use the word "landlord". But it is carefully defined within the Bill. I must admit that we explored a whole series of other possibilities. Mr Connolly indicates by nodding that he also explored some other possibilities. Really, the word "owner" seemed to be the one that came out most clearly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .