Page 3686 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
They cited some of those conditions. They said:
• The Bill proposes adversarial dispute resolution processes (without reference to the accepted approaches, mediation, conciliation, negotiation, before litigation
• The Bill imposes onerous and overly bureaucratic requirements on volunteer committee members
• The Bill does not bring the ACT into line with other states
• Turns Body Corporate Managers into real estate agents
My constituents write:
We were not consulted by government on the drafting of this Bill, nor has the government considered the impact the Bill will have on the large number of pensioners, self-funded retirees as well as young families.
While the ACT Residential Tenancies Act Tenancy Act prescribes tenants rights to “quiet enjoyment, reasonable peace, comfort and privacy”, this Bill does not.
This Bill when passed will also increase red tape, increase cost of living and reduce owner’s quality of life simply because 100,000 Canberrans have chosen to live in medium to high density housing.
They go on to attach various discussion papers they sent me today. They say:
We urge you to consider these issues carefully and to please work toward making the required changes to the Bill.
I know the futility that occurs sometimes with votes taken in this place, although tonight showed that you cannot always predict what will happen. But with that concern and with the commitment I made to the people I represent, I want to formally move that debate be adjourned on this matter. I seek leave to move the adjournment of the debate.
Leave not granted.
MR MULCAHY: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Mulcahy from moving that debate be adjourned.
Question put.
The Assembly voted—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .