Page 2774 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 16 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
after the day the order is made. I support the government’s intention to apply an expiry date to conditional orders so that they do not continue indefinitely. However, community groups have raised concerns with the government and with my office regarding possible unintended consequences of limiting the expiry period to 12 months.
Concerns centre on the potential for this to result in tenants being required to repay outstanding rent within 12 months. One year is not long enough for many people to repay a debt they have accrued, particularly the most vulnerable households living on low incomes. The debt may have arisen as a result of a genuine crisis, a dispute over a rental rebate or a major change in the household and it may take them some time to fully recover.
My amendment extends the period allowed for conditional orders from one year to two years and also requires the tribunal to be satisfied that the terms of the condition, that is, the repayment schedule, will not cause financial hardship to the tenant or a dependant of the tenant. Once again, if the government is serious about poverty alleviation, it is reasonable to expect that processes for recovering unpaid rent to ACT Housing take appropriate account of the wellbeing of the household. I just want to add here that, with impending changes to the sole parents benefit, noting that quite a few housing tenants are recipients of the parenting benefit for sole parent households where women or men whose children attend school have to move on to newstart allowance with all the dangers of breaches for various reasons, there is the risk of periods without income for a number of housing tenants. I think that is a valid point. I commend the amendment.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (5.50): The government will oppose the amendment. The government asserts quite strongly that the amendment and Dr Foskey’s explanation of it completely misunderstand the impact and the import of the proposal.
The amendment, as Dr Foskey has explained, provides for a default operational period of a conditional order of two years, whereas the government amendment proposes a default period of 12 months. The object of the amendment, as proposed by Dr Foskey, is to meet concerns that the government amendment may lead to a situation where tenants are asked to repay relatively large amounts over a 12-month period. In fact, it does not do that at all. The government amendment to clause 15 deals with a situation where the tribunal imposes a conditional order on a tenant. The order is made in relation to housing commission clients who have not paid rent, as an alternative to eviction, provided the deficiency is made up.
At present, the orders are for an indefinite time. A tenant can make up the deficiency only to find himself or herself liable for eviction many years later if they are running late on one rental payment. The government amendment simply provides that, as a general rule, conditional orders expire after 12 months. That does not mean that any deficiency has to be made up in that time. It simply means that the automatic exposure to eviction is removed after 12 months. A person who during a period of 12 months has established a pattern of making up a deficiency is unlikely to breach the continuing civil requirement to repay the debt. However, if, after that 12-month period, the person defaults on the debt, the lessor can simply seek a new order. To the extent that Dr Foskey’s amendment proposes a longer period, it in fact imposes a more onerous and, we believe, an
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .