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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 516 ..

MR STEFANIAK: My colleague Mr Moore says, "Since self-government." I think that would have to be so, Mr Moore. It would have to be a record.

The final form of the bill is the culmination of a lengthy consultative process-hundreds and hundreds of hours of work by stakeholders who have worked to ensure that it does represent a balance of the competing interests of those concerned. In this area-which has always been a bit of a minefield, not only in Canberra but throughout Australia, not only in retail but also with normal landlords and tenants-it has been very difficult getting a balance. It has been very difficult to get to a stage where you can have a level playing field.

At 5.00 pm the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MR STEFANIAK: I to give credit to those who did so much work. Particular credit should be given to the work of the chair of the Law Society expert committee, Mr Brian Tetlow, who is in the gallery. I acknowledge him. I would also acknowledge the members of his committee, who contributed to the success of the work of that committee.

The government endeavoured to ensure that its bill represented the best and fairest outcome for all parties to a dispute. It remains generally consistent with the underlying policies adopted by the 1994 code and act. For example, as in the existing law, the bill prohibits conduct that is unconscionable or harsh and oppressive. However, on the basis of experience, the bill also provides that the conduct may occur by a tenant or a landlord, and it gives example of such conduct.

Many of these provisions are not the subject of amendments. In the heat of the debate the agreements reached about these provisions should not be overlooked. A number of the matters to be discussed are of minor import only. However, there are two matters of exceptional importance not only to the interests of tenants and landlords but also to the economic wellbeing of the territory. That is something I do not think people should lose sight of in this debate.

The first important question is that of court, not tribunal. In one significant respect, the bill presented by government is significantly different from the approach taken in 1994. To remedy serious problems in the existing dispute resolution process which resulted in delay and uncertainty, the bill removes jurisdiction from the Tenancy Tribunal to the Magistrates Court and imposes new court-directed processes. Mr Stanhope put it fairly well when he spoke about going through the same door and seeing the same faces. I think that was a valid point to make.

Mr Rugendyke has foreshadowed wholesale changes to turn back the clock. Accordingly, I think it is necessary to nail the lie about the value of a tribunal in this area. We have had a tribunal for five years. We are now in a position to judge whether that tribunal should be retained. The government believes that the existing system should go, because tribunal proceedings take too long, and delay translates into cost-cost to all parties.

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