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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 666 ..

Clause 140.

MS TUCKER (9.37): I move amendment No 16 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 part 1 at page 690].

This amendment simplifies the process of addressing the issue of costs. The bill as it now reads includes a provision that encourages the court to award costs against the unsuccessful party. In a situation where legal costs incurred by a large property owner are likely to outstrip the means of retail tenants, this provision would act as too great a disincentive for tenants seeking redress. My amendment simply mirrors the provision in the existing act that parties ordinarily carry their own costs. It still allows for the court to award costs when it believes such action is called for, but the notion of automatically indemnifying the successful party is removed.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (9.38): Mr Speaker, what is in the current bill merely replicates what the normal situation is in any civil matter before the court, and that is that normally costs do follow the event. I would not say that this amendment is meaningless, but the effect will be that all decisions will end up in a costs order and may mean that more cases go to hearing for that reason. I do not think she will achieve what she sets out to achieve.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (9.38): The Labor Party will support Ms Tucker's amendment, Mr Speaker. I think this provision does ameliorate or deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed, particularly by tenant representatives, in relation to potential additional cost as a result of a decision made earlier in the day to dispense with the Tenancy Tribunal.

I mentioned in some detail before, Mr Speaker, the significant representations that have been made to my office, and I assume to others, by representatives of landlords and developers in relation to preferential treatment of tenants. As I mentioned before, I think that was the provision that generated most debate in terms of representation in relation to this bill. I think the issue of the move from the Tenancy Tribunal to the Magistrates Court for the resolution of disputes was the issue that raised the second greatest level of concern. Of course, the issue at point in relation to concerns about a move from the Tenancy Tribunal to the Magistrates Court was the question of costs more than anything else. This amendment is a proposal by Ms Tucker to deal with concerns in relation to that. I think it is appropriate. It is a recognition of the differential in economic power that generally exists between landlords and tenants. The Labor Party, whilst endorsing quite strongly, as I have, the move to the Magistrates Court, accepts the thrust of this amendment.

MR RUGENDYKE (9.40): Mr Speaker, I, too, will be supporting this amendment moved by Ms Tucker.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 140, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 141.

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