Page 2772 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 16 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clauses 8 and 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 10.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (5.40): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name and I table a supplementary explanatory statement to all the amendments [see schedule 2 at page 2785].
This amendment flows from discussions with stakeholders also. The amendment makes a correction in clause 10 to replace the word “lease” with the correct phrase “residential tenancy agreement”. In addition, this amendment inserts a new section 15(6). Section 15(6) removes any doubt about the effect of including a term in a residential tenancy agreement that requires a tenant to pay an outstanding amount to the Commissioner for Housing. Including such a term does not prevent the commissioner and the tenant agreeing to the tenant repaying the outstanding amount over a longer period than that set out in the agreement; nor does it prevent the commissioner from taking any action against the tenant in relation to the outstanding amount.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.41): Mr Stanhope’s amendment No 2 to clause 10 would replace the word “lease” with the correct phrase “residential tenancy agreement”. In addition, this amendment inserts new section 15(6). Section 15(6) removes any doubt about the effect of including a term in a residential tenancy agreement that requires a tenant to pay an outstanding amount to the Commissioner for Housing. Including such a term does not prevent the commissioner and the tenant agreeing to the tenant repaying the outstanding amount over a longer period than that set out in the agreement or prevent the commissioner from taking action against the tenant in relation to the outstanding amount.
I oppose this clause on the basis of the arguments I made previously in relation to clause 7A. In summary, these arguments include that there is no need to include a clause regarding the repayment of outstanding debt in this bill. There is adequate provision already under administrative law. The inclusion of the clause sets up a distinction between public housing tenants and other tenants that is discriminatory and unnecessary. In the past tenants have agreed to repay a debt that is not legitimate, and there remains a question over how the tribunal will establish that the debt has been substantiated. Combining the repayment of past debt with current rent payments means that effectively a tenant could be evicted twice for the same debt.
It is regrettable that in relation to this clause and various others included in the bill, the government has chosen to meet separately with various stakeholder groups and, by doing so, has placed itself in a position of choosing between conflicting advice about the impact of various clauses from government agencies and community groups. As a result, there remains considerable dissatisfaction and concern with this bill amongst community groups representing those most likely to be affected. A better approach, and one that we suggested some time ago, would have been to have brought the parties together to work through the issues in a collaborative way to develop a better understanding of their concerns and to identify potential solutions. I think that the bill would have been considerably enhanced if such a process had been followed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .