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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2930 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the tribunal will be able to dismiss vexatious or frivolous claims. Another important step, I think, will be the right of the tribunal to award, at least to a very limited extent, costs in cases before it, particularly out-of-pocket expenses which litigants might have incurred in the course of taking action in the tribunal. The tribunal will also be providing for a legally qualified member of the staff of the tribunal or of a court to be appointed to the office of referee. I think that is a very good step - to have a referee who will be able to determine matters where the amount involved is less than $1,000. It should be a quick and easy solution that does not involve all of the rigmarole and all of the expense of going to court. I believe that will open up the tribunal to a much wider range of people in our community. Given that it will be dealing in that way with matters with a cost of less than $1,000, to refer to it as a consumer tribunal would make it much more apparent to people that they have rights before this body, and that, even though the matter which they are in dispute over may amount to less than $1,000, as consumers, they can go to this tribunal and have a referee adjudicate the matter for them. I would urge the Minister to rethink the change of name.

Mr Speaker, as I said, I will be speaking at more length when we have the Bill before us, but I want to indicate again that the review, I believe, has been timely. As far as I can judge from the documents the Minister has tabled, the direction and the breadth of the policy initiatives that have arisen from that review have found favour with the Opposition so far.

MS HORODNY (11.39): Mr Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this exposure draft as well. The Small Claims Court plays an important role in our legal system, particularly, as Mr Humphries pointed out in his tabling statement, in terms of improving low cost access to justice. The Greens do not have any real problems with this draft Bill or the proposal to change the name.

There are a few specific issues that I would like to raise, and the Minister may like to take some of these on board in considering the draft Bill. In some areas I think the reforms could have gone further, and it would be interesting to hear what the result of the community consultation on this issue has been. The Greens believe it is quite sensible to extend the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court to include neighbourhood-type disputes such as trespass, dividing fences and so on. This jurisdiction could be further extended and a legislative reform which may really have an impact in terms of improving access to justice in the ACT could be to prohibit bringing actions of less than $2,000 to the Magistrates Court unless both parties agree. This would certainly give the Small Claims Tribunal greater power and would reduce costs.

I would also like to speak in support of clause 92, which will empower the Small Claims Tribunal to make an order for the delivery of goods as well as payment of damages. This is an important step forward because some of the disputes, particularly domestic disputes, are not about large amounts of money. This provision will enable the tribunal to order the return of personal items such as photos or clothing which may not have great monetary value but have important sentimental value. This is a very sensible policy and it has our full support. I would say, however, that it is important to ensure that this is enforceable; so, to achieve this end it may be appropriate to include some kind of penalty.

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