Page 2771 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 16 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a fair debt review process—is a process that can be undertaken by other tribunals. It is more properly the role of other tribunals and not the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. It is fair to say that there is a danger in simply extending the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to deal with this particular issue, having cast the responsibility on the tribunal in the way that Dr Foskey’s amendment would, unlike the responsibility that is currently vested in the commission or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which would normally review decisions made by the commissioner. I think the point is that, and it is at the heart of the government’s objection, it is the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that currently has the very jurisdiction that Dr Foskey now proposes be vested in the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.
The government’s point is that the jurisdiction already exists; it is just that it exists in another tribunal. It has to be said that, unlike the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Residential Tenancies Tribunal does not have any power to waive any part or indeed all of a debt. So in that regard the amendment that Dr Foskey proposes would be ineffectual in that the Residential Tenancies Tribunal simply does not have the power. One might then argue that we could give it the power to waive part or all of the debt and that by doing that we might achieve the ultimate purpose of the amendment. But, in the circumstance where the AAT already has the power, it is my view and the view of the department that it simply is not wise to duplicate the review power that the AAT already has. It seems to me that that is unnecessary, undesirable, unwise, and not a path that we should pursue.
The essential issue that Dr Foskey seeks to address through her amendment is effectively to duplicate in the Residential Tenancies Tribunal powers already vested in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. For those reasons, the government will not support the amendment to the amendment but does acknowledge that it was through the issue being aired by Dr Foskey’s office that we, through further consultation with stakeholders, acknowledged that some clarification was desirable for provision. It is for those purposes that we moved an amendment that we do not believe would be enhanced by the proposed amendment to the amendment that Dr Foskey proposes.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (5.38): We will be opposing Dr Foskey’s amendment to the amendment but supporting the amendment further to what the attorney has actually said. I do note that the government’s amendment should alleviate some of the fears that Dr Foskey has. There is a provision where the commissioner and the tenant can agree to the tenant repaying the outstanding amount over a period time longer than the period set out in the term. I think that should go somewhere to alleviating her fears. I think the point she raises is a vexed one that shows how important it is for people, especially people on a limited income, to do a direct debit when they go into a tenancy with ACT public housing. It alleviates the difficulty of ensuring that you have a roof over your head because that amount of your income is already parked. You do not have to worry about it, and it just makes it so much easier for people who are in financial difficulties.
Dr Foskey’s amendment negatived.
Mr Stanhope’s amendment agreed to.
Proposed new clause 7A agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .