Page 3637 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Next, the Tenants Union argues that the compensation limit of $5,000 that the ACAT can award to a tenant for a breach of a database provision is at odds with the ACAT’s broader power to award compensation up to $25,000 in other residential tenancy disputes. The union is concerned that the limit of $5,000 does not reflect the degree of gravity associated with listing a tenant on the database. It further suggests that lessors, agents and database operators who breach listing obligations should be subject to penalties. The government disagrees on both issues. It said there is no evidence to suggest that a limit of $5,000 for compensation is inadequate and that levying penalties provides no material benefit. It also pointed out that compensation limits can be lifted easily by regulation should the need arise. I tend to agree with the government on these issues.
Finally, the Tenants Union notes that a time limit of six months applies for a tenant to make an application to the ACAT in relation to a database listing. The government responded that the time period only starts when the tenant becomes aware of the listing, not after the entry is made on the database. This would suggest that, even if an entry appeared on the database, say, a year ago and the tenant only became aware of it seven months after the entry was made, the tenant would have a full 13 months from when the entry was made to make application to the ACAT. We agree with the government’s interpretation.
This bill may translate to an additional administrative and cost burden on lessors and agents. I am advised that the real estate industry has no difficulty with this, being able to roll it into normal operations relatively easily. However, it also provides some protections to tenants to ensure that information that is held about them is held fairly and accurately and for a limited time.
It is a step forward for Canberra’s long-suffering tenants, facing spiralling rents in a tighter and more ruthless rental market. It certainly will not ease those challenges, nor will it ease the challenges of the spiralling cost of living for people who cannot afford to buy their own homes. However, it will ease, at least in some way, the worries that tenants have to face when they are next coming up for rental and wondering how their reputation will be handled. I commend the government for these provisions. I believe that we could have been dealing with this earlier, and probably should have been dealing with it earlier, but we are happy to support the amendments today.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.44): The Greens will be supporting this bill today as well. The bill will allow landlords and their agents in the ACT to enter details of past tenants onto nationwide databases. Currently in the ACT there is legislation that governs this area. However, because of a quirk of legislative history, the law has never been fully effective and we are advised that currently ACT information is not entered onto the databases. This bill clarifies the situation to allow landlords and their agents to enter details onto those national databases.
In the process of doing this, the bill adds a number of further protections and safeguards for tenants into the legislation. The Greens certainly support the intent in this regard. When a tenant gets listed on a database for poor behaviour at the rented premises, they risk their chances of getting future rental accommodation. For this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video