Page 4280 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The civil dispute jurisdictional limit of the ACAT, under which ACL matters fall, was last reviewed in 2016, after extensive consultation with the public and key legal system stakeholders. Responses from this consultation were overwhelmingly in favour of increasing ACAT’s jurisdiction. However, there was some variation in the amount that people thought that increase should be. After careful consideration, the government decided to increase the civil dispute jurisdiction to $25,000, with a view to increasing access to justice, while also allowing the government to monitor and manage the impacts of the reform on the workload of ACAT.
The ACAT has dealt with the increase in its jurisdiction in an exemplary manner, seeing an average increase of approximately 300 matters per year as a result of the reform. I see merit in the proposal to increase its jurisdiction further in relation to consumer matters, as Ms Cheyne has suggested in her motion. However, to ensure that any policy reforms in this space meet its objective and can be properly implemented within the justice system, I suggest that relevant stakeholders are consulted and their views are considered in developing a way forward. In particular, the potential resourcing implications on the ACAT that would flow from this initiative would need to be carefully considered prior to making a decision about whether the tribunal’s jurisdiction should be increased. Of course, the Attorney-General also has an interest in this matter through his portfolio responsibilities.
I note that there is a body of work being progressed at the national level regarding these matters, which follows a review of the ACL by Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand, or CAANZ. Following this review, I wrote to the Attorney-General about ensuring that the ACT’s legislation continues to align with the ACL. Access Canberra and the Justice and Community Safety Directorate are working together to provide government with advice about the potential to increase the tribunal’s jurisdictional limits.
Ms Cheyne’s motion also calls on the government to give consideration to enhancing statutory warranties for certain second-hand vehicles and introducing increased consumer rights in relation to faulty vehicles. I agree that this is worthy of consideration. The government has an ongoing commitment to ensure that our laws provide a robust consumer protection framework for the people of Canberra, especially for significant investments such as motor vehicles. We will explore this issue and the other issues raised in Ms Cheyne’s motion to ensure that our consumer protection laws meet the ongoing needs of our community.
Ms Cheyne has noted some instances in which consumers were unsatisfied with second-hand vehicles they purchased in Canberra. From talking to Access Canberra, I understand that they have received very few complaints about these issues. In the instances where they have received complaints, they have been able to assist and to conciliate satisfactory outcomes. I encourage consumers who have issues to contact Access Canberra. They can also receive assistance through our Fair Trading office. I accept that there may be a disconnect between the number of complaints received by Access Canberra and the number of people who are experiencing grievances with motor vehicle purchases. There is a likelihood that not everyone with a grievance is making a complaint.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video