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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 429 ..

MS REILLY (continuing):

will do is to bring ACT Housing and the public landlord under the same aspects of the law as the private landlord. This will ensure that, if ACT Housing wishes to evict a tenant, the tenant is given reasons for the eviction and is aware of the processes under which this will operate. This will ensure greater transparency of the whole process. This will also give the tenant greater understanding of what is going on.

There are efficiencies that can flow from this process through the fact that when it goes to court the tenant is already aware of the reasons, and there is no doubt about what is going on. At times there is misunderstanding, and the letters that are written by Housing do not spell out the reasons for eviction. For a number of tenants receiving these letters, the result is panic, understandably. A threat to one's house is a very basic threat. Housing is a very basic need. Consequently, when a number of tenants receive an eviction notice or a notice of intent to evict, they panic. In some cases they do foolish things, like leave the house or try to find ways of getting around the situation. If they were aware of what was going to happen, if they were aware of the reason for eviction, they would not need to panic and there would be better information on all sides.

It would also save time in the court. Everybody would be aware of the reasons for eviction when they get to court. In some cases the situation could be resolved before court action is taken. We are not just trying to change ACT Housing; we are also trying to provide more rights to tenants in public housing in the ACT. We are trying to reduce the amount of court time. The legal aid inquiry has shown that people who represent themselves often spend longer in court and have less success, so there is no equality before the law. We are also trying to save the very precious dollars available for legal aid. If there is less need for court action, there is less need to expend money through lawyers. So we are looking at improving efficiency in the process.

At this stage if you look at the number of actions started by Housing you are likely to find quite a number of cases before the court at any one time. Those are the people who know they can go and get legal assistance. There are a number of people who do not know that they can get legal assistance and do not take it, and these people are not receiving the same benefits as other tenants in the ACT. Further to that, there are benefits for ACT Housing through being able to resolve problems, in some cases being able to get back-rent and other arrears. Also, there is less chance of abandonment of property. In a number of instances, when people receive the notice of intent to evict, they are unaware of their rights and quite often they abandon the property. That creates other problems for Housing in terms of losing further rent and having vacant properties.

If you look at the Bill that is before you, it involves a change to sections 5 and 6 of the principal Act. The main thing is to bring ACT Housing into the same legal regime as all other landlords in the ACT. This would mean that ACT Housing would have no greater discretion than any other landlord. It would mean the greatest transparency for tenants and it would lead to a better outcome for tenants and landlords in the ACT. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stefaniak) adjourned.

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