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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3105 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Ms Horodny said in her remarks that I have not appointed any additional mediators. Mr Speaker, I table the instrument which I signed on 29 June to appoint 15 mediators. Their names are: Aurelio Biurra, Tanya Brass, Tim Chadwick, Christine Harrison, Tim Johnstone, Anthony Melican, Peter O'Dea, Christine Page, David Purnell, Sue Sheridan, Val Sinclair, Tom Stodulka, Russell Whitewood, Chris Yong and Stephen Young.

MR MOORE (6.13), in reply: Mr Speaker, originally, after this debate started, I thought I would be up here wrestling with some of the major points put by the Government and the Opposition; but I am not left with anything upon which I have to refute the arguments. There is some flowery language. There is a perception by Mr Humphries that it would be far better if he had the opportunity to protect people by ministerial fiat and ministerial action. Rather than taking him on personally, small businesses can come to him, hat in hand, and say, "Minister, I need your help". Then he can say, "Yes; I am the one who will be able to help you personally to resolve this problem by assisting you in the tribunal"; as opposed to ensuring that there are in place appropriate processes that start with mediation and encourage landlords, in particular, to go to mediation because they know that people have access to a tribunal as the fall-back position. That is what this legislation did, along with the other things that were so eloquently dealt with by Ms Horodny to refresh people's minds today, because it has been some time since I introduced the legislation and presented the speech.

The original version of this legislation was considered to be retrospective,' as a code of practice was not operational until after 1 January 1995. I think that is not the case. However, recognising that quite a number of members believed that to be the case, I introduced the amendments to the legislation, circulated those and made sure that people had plenty of time to see them. But the current situation really is that such tenants can have access to the tribunal for a hearing only if they can prove that the landlord was harsh and unconscionable. Of course, to do that takes quite considerable time and legal debate. It is often too late; the business is closed. That is the major problem. The amendments that I have put up provide redress for the inequities that currently operate - perhaps not all of them, and that is why it is that I have no problem with Mr Humphries running a review of the code and a review of the legislation.

I heard Mr Wood talking about the review as though this is something that we now have to wait for. But, of course, the reality is - and Mr Humphries will readily concede this - this legislation was already under way and, I am sure, was also tabled before the review was established. At the very least, I had announced that these draft instructions were under way, and you understood exactly what I was trying to say.

Mr Humphries: We had announced the review as well.

MR MOORE: I am sure this predates any announcement you had made. Action that I was taking predated any announcement of a review. But I have no problem with a review. I think a review is important. I think that the two could run in parallel, but the review will continue even if the legislation passes. As yet, we are still not quite sure exactly what Labor is going to do, I must say, because Mr Wood's speech left open a possibility as to which way they would move. I cannot be critical of that because I have made such speeches on many occasions. We look forward to the vote.

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