Page 4250 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 24 October 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the taxpayers’ burden in funding government oversight. We have far too much of a tax burden already.
The commercial guarantee vendors must be free to operate in the ACT market with the minimum of red tape. But, by the same token, product descriptions and disclosures must be clear and transparent, with lessors and tenants provided with a practical comprehension of what is to be offered or not offered in the guarantee. The lessors’ claims process requirements must be made clear and the discretion of lessors to choose a cash bond option must be protected.
In relation to the rental bond trust account, a significant move by lessors away from cash bonds could affect its earnings and the use of these funds. And the bill’s explanation does not address the implications of this for the budget and the funding levels for ACAT and also the Tenants Union. The minister might wish to elaborate on this at some stage, and I am sure he will.
I note that the JACS scrutiny committee has brought a few things to the Assembly’s attention. While the scrutiny committee did not have a grave concern about the retrospectivity of schedule 1 of the bill, it does bring to the Assembly’s attention that providers are prevented from selling commercial guarantee products until such time as schedule 2 of the bill comes into effect. As I mentioned earlier, this denies tenants an opportunity to obtain a rental bond at a much lower cost, providing the landlord agrees of course.
In the same section the scrutiny report observes that the original explanatory statement placed on the ACT legislation register at the time of the bill’s introduction was replaced on 28 September. The minister should note that many stakeholders are heavily reliant on these statements, both on the government side and the opposition side, as well as effective industry and consumer sectors. And while I appreciate the pressures that staff are under in regard to these processes it would be useful if the minister could in future let us know that a change has occurred. He might also explain why a revised statement was necessary in this particular instance.
The scrutiny report also brings some human rights issues to the attention of the minister in relation to regulation-making powers in section 136 of schedule 2. In this case the committee has actually asked the minister for a response and perhaps the minister could share it with us today.
In conclusion, I have not received any indication that there are significant problems with the bill; nor have I reached any such conclusion. The Tenants Union raised some concerns about it but that is not unexpected. I have had a conversation also with the developer of one of the main products, who was not displeased that we were going down a path of what he described as formalising his company’s entrance into this market.
On balance, we believe the principles underpinning the bill are acceptable. The provisions seem to present an opportunity to safeguard lessors, tenants and vendors of commercial guarantees alike and this is reinforced by having the overarching standard guarantee contract terms and conditions registered with the Commissioner of Fair
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video