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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2621 ..

I am a qualified lawyer and I do not think other members would have had a huge amount of time to look at them either.

Ms Tucker: No.

MR STEFANIAK: Ms Tucker is shaking her head, and she is quite right. I must say that, from the quick look I have had at the amendments and the talk I have had with and the advice I have received from the relevant people in the Law Society, I am reasonably satisfied that these amendments should proceed today and that there is an urgency to do so.

But I think it is a bit rich for the government to make great protestations about other people’s amendments and doing things on the run when probably what is now before us has very much had to be done on the run. I say to the government that in September last year you made some substantive changes to the way property law and conveyancing in this territory are carried out. Instead of buyers having to get their own documents, the seller now has to provide all those documents in the contract.

Up until a couple of weeks ago, I had seen I think about one advertisement indicating what was going to happen. I think a lot of people in that nine-month period were caught somewhat unawares. After good consultation with the Law Society and with the Real Estate Institute leading up to that, in September you changed the law. When you changed the law I indicated that I expected to see that good consultation continue. I think you went to sleep after that. Suddenly it is all upon us. The law in relation to conveyancing has changed. Now we have everyone—buyers and seller—madly scrambling for the relevant certificates. So these amendments are really to get us over that hiatus period.

I think there should have been a little bit of forethought and perhaps a little bit of recognition of what really was important in respect of the legislation you brought down. It has been suggested to me by other lawyers that perhaps if you were not so concerned with legislation such as your Human Rights Act and concentrated more on getting right the basic things that really do affect ordinary citizens in Canberra, we would not have had this problem.

The Law Society feels that these amendments are going to do the job. In fact, there will now be a situation where people can on a handshake agree to sell property, and up until I think 31 October the buyer will still ultimately have some time; and contracts will not formally be binding until such time as there is a pest report and a building report. But at least there is recognition of the fact that there is a bit of a problem at present, which I think with a bit of prior preparation and planning could have been overcome by the government. At least the government recognises that “oops, there is a problem now” and some sensible provisions are being put into effect which will get us over that problem. But you need not have put yourselves in that mess.

On the basis of what I have been advised by the Law Society and the quick glance I have had at these amendments—and it has been very quick and not as long as I would have liked—we will support them. I add the proviso that I hope you and the Law Society are right. I would hate to see any more dislocation in the property market at this point in time with problems caused by either the action or inaction of the government affecting buyers

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