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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1777 ..

6

human existence such as the right to fresh air, having an acceptable level of noise during sleeping hours and so forth. In the same manner the jurisdiction of the Tribunal will cover allegations of trespass.

Additionally, I propose that the Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine problems that arise as a result of dividing fence and party wall disputes between neighbours and other interested parties. These are matters where people are invariably self-represented in the Magistrates Court and generally only a small amount of money is at issue. Accordingly, I believe that it is more appropriate that these disputes be dealt with by the Tribunal. The Civil Division of the Magistrates Court in South Australia has a similar provision and, I believe, it works well.

These changes mean that disputes that arise in relation to neighbourhood-type problems will be dealt with by the Tribunal quickly, cheaply and decisively.

Presently, the Common Boundaries Act 1981 provides comprehensive and self-contained procedures for dealing with dividing fences and party wall disputes. I will be interested in the community's views on whether the procedures for disputes that arise from dividing fences and party walls should be dealt with by the Common Boundaries Act 1981 or whether the procedures should be integrated into the Small Claims Tribunal Bill.

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