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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 4 Hansard (1 April) . . Page.. 1121 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

We see in similar legislation that tribunals have the ability to impose fines. I find that to be a pretty good, quick way of administering justice. For example, if every matter had to go to the Magistrates Court, that court would be clogged up even more than it is at present. There would be a lot of delay, and justice delayed is justice denied. There is a lot to be said for having a body like this being able to exercise its powers quickly, fairly and appropriately. The tribunal can review licensing decisions under the Agents Act or the Security Industry Act. So apparently people can appeal decisions by the Commissioner for Fair Trading that adversely affect them.

The tribunal can also take disciplinary action. The Commissioner for Fair Trading can apply to the tribunal to discipline agents or, indeed, security people. So there are some things it certainly can do. Of course, if people are unsatisfied with the tribunal they then can go to the court by way of appeal.

So, all in all, I think this is a good bill. A lot of work has gone into it-work which I think probably started during the term of the previous government. I note again the consultation that has taken place and the fact that Mr Hird is obviously very happy with the bill. These are very strong points in its favour. I think this piece of legislation will assist the industry greatly and the opposition is happy to support it.

MS TUCKER (11.19): The Greens will be supporting this bill in principle and proposing some amendments in the detail stage. The bill in effect simplifies the licensing procedures as they relate to agents and the security industry, and we are happy to support that intent.

I had intended to move an amendment to change the name of the tribunal set up by this bill to that of licensing review tribunal, which is, in effect, what the bill will create. However, this is also the first stage of a more general project which will bring other tribunals into the same structure. I understand that this will include finance brokers, secondhand goods, motor vehicles, fair trading, liquor licensing, essential services and residential tenancies.

A key element of the thinking behind this project-and one which I would like to support-is that all tribunals need a customer focus that empowers citizens as much as possible. Also, the processes need to be as simple and as informal as possible. On that basis, then, I will not pursue those amendments but will focus instead on the consumer interest, which is the core of the exercise. I will in the detail stage move amendments to ensure that consumer interests are represented and understood on the tribunal and the panels it sets up.

I am surprised that government has been hiding its light under a bushel with this project. This bill was introduced on 20 February and it came as a surprise even to the Consumer Law Centre-an operation which is funded by the department responsible for this legislation and a body, one would presume, which would be automatically built into the consultation process.

Furthermore, it was only after this bill had been introduced that the nature of the broader project became known. I would imagine that bodies such as ACT Shelter, the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre, the Motor Traders Association and so on would also have appreciated being brought up to speed on this. Indeed, if the whole idea is one of

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