Page 3696 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of a hands-off or a win-win approach to dispute resolution processes so that what we try to do is keep it out of a tribunal, try to build community and have a process that does not lead to mistakes being continued into the future.
Instead, what we have got is a very heavy-handed and ham-fisted approach from the government. I think this bill may well be synonymous with the approach that the government has taken with so much of its legislation in the last seven years: state that there is a problem; appoint a consultant; do not listen to the outcome of the consultation; delay for several years; put something out, in this case quite stealthily by just putting it on the web as a draft; ignore the consultation and the reaction of the public; put a slightly modified bill on the table to give the impression that one has listened; and then ram it through the Assembly a couple of hours later.
Here we are at quarter past 10 at night debating fairly significant legislation and legislation that affects a very large number of Canberrans. In case the minister does not know how many people it will affect and how many units it will affect, one estimate I will quote from says that, in 2006, of the 2,653 registered unit plans in the ACT, 989 contained two-unit residences, 1,100 contained three to 19 units, 180 contained 20 to 100 units, and 26 unit plans contained more than 100 units. Since 2006, that number would have grown. We are talking about an extraordinarily large percentage of the population which will be affected by this bill.
While I have heard from a few people that some aspects of the bill are acceptable, I have not heard an overwhelming endorsement from anyone that this is the approach that we should take. So the residents who were affected by it are not in favour of it; those who will administer it are not in favour of it; Mr Mulcahy is not in favour of it; the Greens are not in favour of it; the Liberal opposition is not in favour of it.
The only one who seems to be in favour of it is the government and, as they behaved so arrogantly over the last several years, they will simply ram this through because they can. And I think that is sad. I have never seen such a bill in the 10 years that I have been here.
We need to go back to the tabling speech of the minister, and it is quite interesting. There are a number of issues that have been raised tonight. Let me refer to two: the creation of the licence for the managers and the funding. And what does the minister say? The minister said, “Remember, in 2005, this process started; in 2006, consultation; in July 2008, a draft was put on the website; in August 2008, the bill was finally tabled in the Assembly.” And how complete is it? It is this complete:
It is intended that a new category of licence be created under the Agents Act. At this stage it is like to be referred to as the owners corporation manager’s licence. It is intended that those persons who provide owners corporation management services but do not hold an owners corporation manager’s licence will be grandfathered in the legislation.
We have not even got a name for these people. After three years of process, we have not worked out what we are going to call them, let alone the process by which they will get registration and by which their qualifications will be proved. And if that does not tell you there is something wrong with this legislation, then I suspect nothing will.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .