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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1349 ..

MS TUCKER (6.52): The Greens will be supporting this Bill and the amendment. My officers, like many others in this place, deal with a constant stream of issues facing public housing tenants in the ACT. It certainly is not clear what processes are in place sometimes and I think this Bill will be very useful in creating a level playing field - something Liberals like to talk about. It is no wonder that many organisations have been arguing for more complete residential tenancy coverage of public housing. These include the Law Society, the Tenants Union, the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre, the Consumer Affairs Bureau, and the former Youth Accommodation Group.

The Community Law Reform Committee, in its report on private residential tenancy law, formed the preliminary view that the ACT Housing Trust should be bound by the proposed Residential Tenancies Act because the problems are broadly the same, whether the lessor is a private individual, a corporation or the ACT Housing Trust. The committee stated that public tenants should have the same rights, protection and obligations as private tenants. They did recommend that the issue required more investigation, but I think the issue of eviction is one very clear area where better legislative protection is required.

When Ms Reilly tabled this Bill the Government had been promising new residential tenancies legislation for some time. Although it has been promised for a long time, it has been a long time coming. I am very pleased that it will be tabled on Thursday, and I share Ms Reilly's enthusiasm. At the time Ms Reilly prepared this Bill it was still unclear whether or not the legislation would cover public tenants. Now we have been assured that it will cover ACT Housing. We are, however, still faced with the situation that, although we have new legislation about to be tabled, which we are assured will cover public tenants, it will still be some time before it comes into effect. In the meantime, public tenants have a right to due process when it comes to eviction, and this is clearly the intention of Ms Reilly's legislation.

The Government has put forward an amendment. Since Ms Reilly tabled her legislation the Government has come forward with evidence that there are unintended consequences of the Bill. Some of these unintended consequences are probably not a bad thing. Anyway, we are interested. We are prepared to support the amendment, although we also will be keeping a close eye on what happens. Ms Reilly has been very reasonable in agreeing to the Government's amendment, and we will support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Remainder of Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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