Page 3692 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
On reflection, I am happy to support Mr Rattenbury’s amendment No 7 but I cannot support the remainder of the amendments. On that basis, I think I would be asking that they be divided, as I outlined previously.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.47): I thank other members for their comments on these matters. As I have previously indicated to both Mr Rattenbury and Mrs Dunne, the government does not support these amendments. Mrs Dunne has given a reasonably accurate summary as to why.
Amendments Nos 1 and 2 in particular deal with the issue of who can list on a tenancy database. Mr Rattenbury is advocating the position that has been put by the Tenants Union that there is a risk, albeit a very small risk—indeed, a very small hypothetical risk—that a person other than a lessor, a lessor’s agent or a database operator may list a matter which is adverse to a tenant on the database.
In the government’s view, and as I have said to Mr Rattenbury and Mrs Dunne, we believe it extremely unlikely that a person other than a lessor or a real estate agent would try to list information about a former tenant. No-one uninterested in the agreement will have any incentive to list. Further, a person who, in the extremely unlikely event, does maliciously list a person potentially opens themselves to a civil action in relation to defamation. So we simply do not think that this is a problem that needs to be fixed. Therefore, we will not be supporting that amendment, nor will we be supporting amendment No 2.
Amendment No 3 is, I think, the most significant amendment and the issue of concern that I raised in this debate prior to lunch. It is the proposal from Mr Rattenbury that a court or ACAT must make an order requiring the lessor to pay an amount that is more than the rental bond as a precondition of a listing taking place. This would require the lessor to obtain an ACAT or court order that quantifies the amount owed. We believe it really only offers marginally greater protection to tenants while imposing a significant additional burden on lessors. There is little justification for this amendment and it is a substantial departure from the model uniform provisions.
I note Mr Rattenbury’s argument that the government’s concern about the ACAT making an order in circumstances where the tenant cannot be located—that is, to use the vernacular, they have done a runner—is addressed through the existing provisions of the ACAT legislation, which allows the ACAT to make an order in certain circumstances, even in the absence of the tenant. That is a valid observation in relation to issues around a bond but may not, in the government’s view, be a valid observation in relation to an adverse decision to list.
The listing potentially has a greater implication for the tenant than the simple issue as to what they are required to pay in terms of outstanding bond or moneys additional to bond, because a listing has potentially a longer term detriment in that it will affect that person’s ability to potentially get further accommodation for an extended period of time if they remain in the private rental market. In the government’s view it would be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video