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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 507 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The lessor is taken to have consulted the tenants in a shopping centre if the lessor consults a representative body of the majority of tenants in the centre. This provision could be manipulated in such a way that a sizeable minority was not consulted. I propose that the provision be deleted.

There are a number of other provisions that I considered amending, but I understand that the government, Mr Rugendyke and the Greens-it may be that there are other amendments I am not aware of-will also be proposing amendments that address some of our other concerns.

Finally, might I say a word about the scrutiny of bills committee report on this bill. It raised questions of undue trespass on personal rights and liberties; insufficiently defined administrative powers; and inappropriate delegation of legislative powers. However, the committee went on to say:

That is a particularly significant finding of the scrutiny of bills committee, having regard to the nature of reports that each of us here is used to from that committee. That is a finding that members might reflect on in their approach to this bill.

Whilst the number and significance of the amendments to be moved would indicate there is some dispute about whether there has been a balanced consideration, we can be confident that at least the attempt has been made by the government.

One of the major points of difference between the two bills-the government's bill and Mr Rugendyke's bill-is that the government's bill abolishes the Tenancy Tribunal and vests jurisdiction over disputes in the Magistrates Court. Mr Rugendyke retains the tribunal and imposes some responsibility on it for acting quickly.

The government's approach, via the Magistrates Court, provides for case management meetings between the parties, chaired by a magistrate or registrar; referral of disputes to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms if settlement is possible; and full hearings as quickly and cheaply as possible as a last resort. I see little different in whether the form of the dispute resolution is called a tribunal or a court. Presiding officers will be the same people. The registrars and clerks will be the same people. The proceedings will be the same.

I understand that Ms Tucker will be moving to amend the cost provisions currently retained within the government's bill, to the effect that the cost provisions will be the same as currently in the tribunal. I foreshadow that the Labor Party will be supporting those amendments of Ms Tucker's.

The critical element in either approach is a speedy resolution of minor disputes before they poison the relationship between the landlord and the tenant, because, as I said at the outset, these bills go to the heart of our economic wellbeing to the protect the interests of all parties. However, lessors are usually large corporations well able to protect themselves, and I make no apology if the Labor Party tips the balance in favour of the

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