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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 576 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The Labor Party believes it is worth giving the new scheme a chance. That decision is based on the significant advances that have been made in case management within the Magistrates Court and, I hope, a real determination by the Magistrates Court to genuinely exploit every avenue for alternative dispute resolution and bring them to the fore in disputes between landlords and tenants. That is the stated intention of the bill; it is the government's intention; it is the ethos that is beginning to prevail. The expeditious handling of matters within the Magistrates Court is a hard nut to crack, but it is the direction in which we are moving.

It might be the case that the government could have been a little bit more rigorous or muscular in its determination to see alternative dispute resolution mechanisms utilised. The provisions within the act that require the magistrate at a case management hearing to seek to achieve a consensus between the landlord and the tenant to pursue alternative dispute resolutions might have been imposed a little bit more vigorously with the suggestion--as is the case in other jurisdictions--that the parties go away and attempt arbitration or mediation before coming back to the Magistrates Court to have the matter dealt with there.

It is something the government might have achieved, and it is something that we could pursue down the track. But if, within the bill, the government has determined to abolish the tribunal and allow the court to do the work previously done by the tribunal--and, I insist, not done particularly well--it may have been opportune to provide that parties to a dispute be required to attempt mediation, conciliation or arbitration of some sort before the court even entertains dealing with an action or a matter. I lay on the table as something that the Labor Party is prepared to keep alive the suggestion that in every instance of a dispute coming before the court or an application being made, the magistrate send the parties off to arbitration or mediation before the case can be brought back to the court for the more expensive and more litigious approach to dispute resolution.

These are the bases on which the Labor Party has decided to support the government's bill--the government's determination to try a new way of resolving disputes that tenants and landlords cannot settle between themselves through consultation. We recognise that in all aspects of life there are matters where parties cannot sit down and arrive at a consensus that suits each of their positions or requirements and that, in those circumstances, there is a need for an independent arbitrator to do the work they cannot do themselves. There is recognition that new ways of proceeding that are less adversarial and less litigious are needed and that the way forward is through determined dispute resolution mechanisms. We believe that this model will enhance the opportunity for that more than the tribunal currently does.

MS TUCKER (12.13): I need to clarify the Greens' position. I acknowledge that there have recently been difficulties in the tribunal. I think I was not quite clear on that when I spoke before. But the point I want to make is that I do not believe that this move is going to make the process cheaper, faster or simpler. Mr Stanhope says he understands that the government has a stated intention to improve processes in the Magistrates Court. I would like to see the government simplify or improve the processes in the tribunal because we do see advantages in sticking with the tribunal model.

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