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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1347 ..

MS REILLY (6.45): I just reiterate what I said when I introduced this Bill. I still wonder about the reluctance of the Minister for Housing to want to be part of the Landlord and Tenant Act. This has necessitated him amending my Bill. Originally, as I said in my tabling speech, the idea was to ensure that ACT Housing was subject to similar conditions in relation to evictions to other landlords. In fact, one of the issues that brought this to our attention was an appeal in the Supreme Court in the case of the Commissioner for Housing v. Little. It was suggested that ACT Housing should conduct itself as a model landlord and it was not in the spirit of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement that ACT Housing bring proceedings under the 1899 Act rather than under the 1949 Act. In fact, the respondent, the tenant being evicted, was discriminated against because no other landlord would have access to the 1899 Act. I suppose that is the spirit in which we are looking at my Bill.

The amendment that Mr Stefaniak has put up raises a few unintended consequences of the introduction of my Bill. Proposed new clause 5A refers to the receipting processes of ACT Housing. I can understand the difficulties for ACT Housing if they did have to provide further receipts. From a description of the process in relation to receipts of money, it would appear that this process is open and tenants are able to find out what moneys they have paid - although I am quite sure that some of them would be interested in receiving some of their maintenance bills a little earlier than they do. But that is a side issue and is not a part of this Bill.

Proposed new clause 5B refers to a change to section 62A of the principal Act and that relates to rent increases. I am hoping that the numbering, 62AW, is accurate. I hope that was checked, because my copy already has a section 62AW in the principal Act. That aside, the issue relates to rent increases. I think that the Minister's concerns are fairly heightened. I am not quite sure that the costs that he suggests would be there. There have been suggestions in other places that ACT Housing records probably leave much to be desired, and whether they would be affected if they had to do a staggered rent increase is a bit uncertain. I would also question what the cost might be if they had to do this. I am quite sure there are computer programs that could do it very easily on a day-to-day basis.

I was interested to hear about the fact that they have annual reviews in ACT Housing. I was told that the rent reviews are every three years. That is an issue about the internal processes of ACT Housing that I am sure can be sorted out elsewhere. I am quite sure that rent reviews are done in such a way that none of the tenants would be disadvantaged with the change in the rent market as it currently stands. So, in relation to proposed new clause 5B, at this stage I have no objection, although I do wonder at the reasons behind some of the Minister's concerns about this.

I do have more concerns, though, in relation to proposed new clause 5C, which is going to amend section 71. I have had discussions in relation to the exclusion of section 71 of the principal Act at this time. I go back to remind members that the basic criterion for setting up this Bill which I introduced in February was to ensure that eviction processes that ACT Housing undertakes are open and transparent and fully accountable to the tenants affected. I understand that the exclusion of section 71 at this time will not cause

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