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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3784 ..

situations. It is true that people living in van parks have a range of different situations, wants and agreements. Some people own their own van and rent the site and electricity; some people rent on site; and some people pay for use of toilet blocks, while others do not. Then there is the group of retired people travelling around Australia who are having an impact on the demography and the market of van parks.

Van parks can be temporary homes for people whose lives have changed or they can be long-term low-cost housing. Some retire there, and some raise families in parks. This act opens the way for the different situations in van parks to be dealt with via regulations, as long as the particular classes of residents can be identified.

The work of developing specific agreements for the different groups, particularly for people who live medium to long-term in a particular van park, is very important. It is concerning that, over 10 years, even given the diversity, this area of protection has not been sorted out. I am a bit reassured by this process, particularly as I am aware that consultation with some residents of van parks living, I understand, in different situations is under way.

The other major outstanding issue is for victims of domestic violence who are left with the tenancy, and with liability for rent and possible damage to the house if the offending party leaves a residence or is legally forced to leave. The person who has been assaulted should not be left to cope alone with either the cost of the house or the cost of the damage. This issue is one we have pursued in public housing over the years. I understand that the new debt review committee process is empowered to make decisions on the basis of domestic violence. I am not sure how well that is working at this stage. I understand work will continue on this problem, which again is informed by problems that have arisen in New South Wales and the approach taken here.

The government has prepared amendments, again commendably, on the basis of feedback received from the community. Mr Stefaniak, via Mrs Burke, has also circulated some amendments. I have circulated an amendment to the government amendments but will speak to these in the detail stage.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (9.22): This bill makes a number of important changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. The amendments are based on a review of the act undertaken by my department, and follow a number of recommendations from the review that have received general support from stakeholders. The most significant amendment in the bill is the extension of the act to apply to a number of short-term occupancies which are presently excluded from the jurisdiction of the act. The amendments will ensure that the act recognises a variety of less common occupancy arrangements, including boarder and lodger contracts and short-term caravan park arrangements.

The amendments that help to bring short-term occupancies under the jurisdiction of the act include the establishment of a set of occupancy principles that will help to ensure a reasonable standard of accommodation; bringing short-term occupancy agreements into the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal; and development of new sets of prescribed standard occupancy terms that would apply to different short-term occupancies. The bill also makes a variety of other non-contentious amendments. For

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