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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 663 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

This amendment also seeks to input part of my bill into the new regime in relation to the timing of rental applications. This creates an obligation on the tenant to respond to rent increases before the increase takes effect. This means that disputes can be dealt with in a timely manner and heard before the increase takes effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Proposed new clause 132B.

MR RUGENDYKE (9.26): Mr Speaker, I move amendment No 8 on the green sheet circulated in my name which proposes a new clause 132B [see schedule 3 part 2 at page 711].

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (9.26): We oppose this, Mr Speaker. We have a new case management system which we need to focus on here and by imposing a 28-day period there you encourage a culture of adjournments. I think that would be unrealistic. It will generate costs. It will engender that undesirable culture of adjournments and go against the case management system which the bill actually sets up. So, far from doing what Mr Rugendyke might think this will do, this will just generate more costs for everyone concerned, including tenants.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Rugendyke, do you want to comment?

MR RUGENDYKE (9.27): This is a further amendment taken from my bill relating to requiring prompt resolution of disputes. One of the criticisms I have previously outlined in the process is disputes being tied up for excessive periods. I understand that the current average is around 285 days. This is not acceptable, particularly for small businesses who have limited resources and backing. I propose that a clear direction is made by the Assembly to ensure that disputes are dealt with promptly, and a period of 28 days is defined to reach resolution. It is in the interest of all parties to reach a prompt outcome. I commend this amendment to members.

MS TUCKER (9.28): I am a bit concerned about this amendment. Mr Rugendyke did not address the arguments that Mr Stefaniak raised about it leading to different ways of adjourning proceedings, which is not going to solve the problem. I agree with the concerns of Mr Rugendyke for the tribunal and the Magistrates Court, and the long delays. I do not know that this is the way to deal with it though. Perhaps Mr Rugendyke wants to speak again to answer Mr Stefaniak's concerns. I will listen to Mr Stanhope as well. At this point I do not feel that we can support that because we have also heard that there are possibly just going to be adjournments resulting from this rather than actually dealing with the problem.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (9.29): I share those concerns. While I think we all applaud the sentiment contained within the proposed amendment, I do not think there is all that much to be gained by telling the Magistrates Court that you think they should deal with the matter in 28 days. You have no capacity to enforce it. If the court feels inclined to accept an exhortation, which it cannot be bound to in any event, it will only accept it in the terms suggested by having matters listed and then adjourning them so people can go away and think.

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