Page 3688 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The ACT Tenants Union raised the issue in their letter, which all of the parties received, about who has access to databases and their concern that malicious entries may be made at times by third parties who are not landlords, their agents or the database operators. While this is an unlikely event, the Tenants Union expressed the concern, based on their experience, that there is the potential for a past real estate agent or perhaps an angry neighbour to obtain access to a database and enter incorrect information about a tenant.
The government argued in their response to the Tenants Union that this was unlikely and that an amendment to the legislation was not warranted. The Greens have thought about this and we do not accept the government’s assertion that it is not warranted. We believe the amendment we have proposed will cover off on the situation by extending some of the obligations to the “listing person”, which is defined to include any other person.
There are a number of amendments through the bill required to give this effect. There are also a number of times in the government’s bill when the obligations have been differentiated between the lessor, their agent and the database operator. These differing obligations were the result of the national agreement and our amendment does not interfere with those provisions. Our amendment is a simple one that extends the obligation to the listing person where it is possible to do so without interfering with the national agreement.
Amendment No 3 is the next one I would like to speak about. In line with the overarching intent of this bill, this amendment gives greater certainty to both tenants and landlords and their agents. Section 91 sets out two grounds that can give rise to a tenant being listed on a database. This is a welcome step from the government because it legislates the grounds, instead of leaving it up to the landlord or ACAT. It provides, I guess, a clear set of parameters.
Ground No 1 as currently worded would allow a tenant to be listed where the landlord believes that the tenant owes an amount of money that is greater than the bond. We agree that this ground, if proven, does warrant listing. However, we have a concern that the wording is not precise enough and does not give total clarity and certainty. As I touched on earlier in the debate today, often tenants and landlords have differing views as to what has transpired during the term of a lease. It is the case that sometimes tenants downplay the amount of damage or wear and tear that they have caused. On other occasions the landlord or their agent can overplay the situation. To allow the landlord to make a listing on the basis of their view of the facts is problematic, in our view. It would be far more appropriate to require that ACAT be involved, as a neutral third party, and to determine definitively that the amount owing to the landlord was greater than the bond. This is what our amendment would achieve.
One of the things that I wanted to touch on is a technical issue. There is perhaps a view that this amendment is a dramatic change from the moral provisions of the bill agreed to nationally by ministers. An important point to raise on this matter is that the documentation for the ministerial council notes that the model provisions offer a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video