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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1346 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

These three proposed new clauses ensure that ACT Housing can continue its effective administration of public housing. The Bill will not interfere with that. Section 57 of the principal Act, Mr Speaker, to which proposed new clause 5A relates, requires a person who receives payment of rent or a bond to provide a receipt for each and every payment and specifies a range of details. That would have necessitated ACT Housing issuing about 12,000 receipts every fortnight. Quite clearly, I do not think that is intended by Ms Reilly's Bill. It is unnecessary. There are other procedures in place. It would mean that ACT Housing would have to spend extra money and would probably raise standing order 200, which would be a problem too. So, quite clearly, I think ACT Housing needs to be exempt from that; hence proposed new clause 5A. So, to avoid additional costs to the administration of public housing, which could not be justified, the amendment is necessary.

Mr Speaker, there is also an amendment which covers section 62A of the principal Act. Section 62A of the principal Act would effectively prevent ACT Housing, in accordance with the Housing Assistance Act of 1987, from undertaking an annual general rent review of its 12,000 or so tenancies. This is because the provision requires that there be an interval of at least 12 months between the commencement of a tenancy and the date of a rent increase. This means that the rents of some 2,500 dwellings allocated during the 12 months preceding a rent review in each year could not be increased until after a full 12 months had passed for each tenancy commenced.

Further, it would also cause rent increases for those dwellings to become unsynchronised with increases for dwellings generally. That would be most unfortunate because 12-monthly rent reviews are an effective and cost-efficient mechanism for keeping public rents consistent with market levels. The practice is well understood and accepted by our Housing Trust tenants. Furthermore, there is no equity issue to be addressed because practically all new tenants qualify for rent rebates, so they are unaffected by increases in market rents for the dwellings they occupy. Without this amendment, which is proposed new clause 5B, the effect of the provision would be to increase administrative costs without conferring any corresponding benefit on public tenants generally. Again, that would raise the question of standing order 200. Accordingly, that is necessary.

I am advised that section 71 of the principal Act - I have spoken to the Chief Magistrate about this - requires a magistrate to consider in eviction proceedings the hardship of a tenant compared to that of a landlord. I am told by lawyers that therefore this provision could have the effect of reducing ACT Housing's capacity to secure evictions of public tenants because they could always be considered to be in greater hardship than ACT Housing. That could have the effect that no-one could ever be evicted. Quite clearly, I think that is no-one's intention here. Accordingly, it is necessary for that to be amended as set out in proposed new clause 5C.

With this amendment, Mr Speaker, what Ms Reilly said in her tabling speech is brought into effect. Primarily, I think sections 63 and 64 really cover the things which she wants to achieve, and, of course, they stay totally intact as a result of this. This amendment will enable ACT Housing to operate reasonably effectively under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1949, as amended, pending that Act being replaced by the new and comprehensively reformed residential tenancy law. This amendment also ensures that the rights of public tenants are protected. I commend it to the Assembly.

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