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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 517 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

For example, the time to first directions averaged 167 days. The longest time was 870 days. I had been around the courts for quite a while before I came into this place, and I think the longest matter I had involved about 21 part-heards in getting to the Supreme Court and about another 18 months there. I am just amazed at 870 days for disputes that go before the tribunal.

Half the disputes going to directions hearings averaged four directions hearings. Time to hearing averaged 292 days. Time to last hearing day averaged 333 days. The longest time was 921 days, almost three years. Since 1998 there appears to have been a steady decrease in the time required to bring a matter on for hearing. Despite these improvements, these times are unacceptable within a commercial environment-unacceptable to all parties.

The new act will require the court to actively manage disputes within a flexible framework. This will accommodate both simple and complex disputes through a case management hearing process. At such a hearing the court will be required to assess the likelihood of the parties resolving issues in question before the hearing and assisting or encouraging parties to do so by the most appropriate method-for example, by promoting early dispute resolution, including but not limited to mediation, conciliation, facilitation, early neutral evaluation and arbitration-and where settlement seems unlikely, giving directions concerning the matter in which the proceedings will be pursued, which, in the opinion of the court will enable costs to be reduced and will help achieve a prompt hearing of the matters in issues between the parties to the proceedings.

That will be a very significant advance on the present arrangements. The approach has the flexibility to enable a sensitive response to the dispute resolution requirements of each dispute. Additionally, it will require the court to encourage the resolution of disputes by non-litigious means. I urge members not to lend support to amendments that might serve to cut back the government approach.

The second important question is tenant preference. The government bill provides very significant and valuable benefits to tenants through revised market rent provisions. Amendments proposed to clause 53 lock in the concept of an interim agreement, subject to a determination of market rent. Notwithstanding these changes, some have argued for a far more radical change to property interests in the ACT.

Under amendments proposed by Mr Rugendyke, existing owners of property would face an entirely new set of constraints on the way they deal with their property, and this has sparked, understandably, an unprecedented level of concern. It is understood that this may lead to Mr Rugendyke proposing a scheme similar to that introduced in South Australia.

The amendments we have seen so far do not mirror the South Australian scheme, and they are completely unacceptable in their circulated form. Even if Mr Rugendyke does table the amendments in the South Australian form, I would urge members to tread carefully. In South Australia those amendments have not been tested. The lease laws changed in South Australia in 1997, and the changes applied only to new leases, so the law will not be tested in application until next year, 2002, when the five-year tenancies come up for renegotiation. Putting something in the law in the belief that if it is really bad you might be able to take it out later rarely works. It is very difficult to take

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