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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (6 November) . . Page.. 3791 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The Government will go on, perhaps, about the additional costs. They have already, actually, as I recall. Mr Humphries has mentioned that. But the fact is that by coming up with a better structure in the beginning we are going to have a more effective and efficient process. Although we now have members with expertise, it is still not a perfect model because the tribunal does not have its own registrar or resources. So I think from that point of view there are compromises on all sides. At this stage this is a cost neutral proposal, but I would stress that if this is to work most effectively it will not be cost neutral. The tribunal is, obviously, going to be more accessible to all members in the community, and it is a very important aspect of the tribunal that it is. It must be accessible to people who do not speak good English, people with children, and so on.

A second major principle in the amendments is contracting out. As I said in my in-principle speech, it is completely unacceptable to the Greens to have a general principle that parties can obtain independent legal advice and contract out of the terms contained in this legislation. I had originally drafted amendments to knock this possibility out altogether; but, as I indicated in the in-principle speech, we are prepared to compromise to some extent on this point, provided there is no possibility for exploitation of parties with less power. I do not see the point in going to so much trouble to come up with a piece of legislation that sets out the rights and responsibilities of tenants and lessors if anyone can go along willy-nilly and contract out of the terms. For a start, there are potential health and safety issues because the repairs provisions are included in the Schedule. There is also real concern about the abuse of the unequal bargaining position of the two parties.

I think the Greens' opposition to this concept underlines the major ideological difference between us and the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party does not accept that different people have different power and resources at their disposal. Having said that, there may well be cases where knowledgeable parties may both benefit, and that is why we are prepared to support the revised proposal where, on joint application before the tribunal, parties may seek a variation to the terms in this legislation as long as they complied with the prescribed criteria and there is no element of fraud or undue influence.

A third issue raised in this group of amendments is whether people in need should be covered by the legislation. I am very pleased that the Government is removing those clauses, and I look forward to being involved with ongoing debate to ensure that people who receive support in a setting they consider to be their home do receive the protection of this legislation.

These amendments also cover the issue of enabling legal representation in all cases and also remove the ability for the tribunal to award costs, except in the case where the tribunal considers that a party to an application caused unreasonable delay or obstruction before or during a hearing of the application. Another smaller matter, but potentially an important one, is the issue of increasing the amount of compensation the tribunal can award from $5,000 to $10,000, as I have already discussed in the in-principle speech. One other point in this set of amendments is changing the maximum amount of time that the registrar has in which to send out notice of orders of the tribunal from 14 days to seven days. We believe it is very important that parties to a hearing receive early notice of the actual terms of the orders. Although we proposed four days, we are happy with seven. We will live with seven days.

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