Page 242 - Week 01 - Thursday, 13 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
At the risk of pedantry it is also worth noting that the bill’s explanatory statement says that these amendments give effect to the 2016 review, which is not absolutely, 100 per cent accurate. The 2016 review did recommend minimum standards but only for security. The bill that we are voting on today includes more than just security, which is a positive. I do not object to that. I am pleased that the government is moving with the times.
As the Greens have noted in the past, the Greens recognise that one of our roles in life is to be the think tank in terms of new policy ideas. This is what has happened as far as minimum standards for rentals are concerned. I think this is a very valuable role that the Greens fulfil—being the think tank. I hope that this role will continue and that at some point the government will do something about ending unfair evictions. Evictions without cause are a significant issue for tenants in this town today.
I support these amendments and look forward to them making a positive difference for tenants in the ACT, and no difference for most landlords.
MR RAMSAY (Ginninderra—Attorney-General, Minister for the Arts, Creative Industries and Cultural Events, Minister for Building Quality Improvement, Minister for Business and Regulatory Services and Minister for Seniors and Veterans) (12.08), in reply: This bill contains a range of amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act. I thank members for their contribution to this debate. What we know is that we will have, as the outcome of this, better outcomes and more efficient outcomes. What we also know is that the Canberra Liberals have demonstrated today that they will bend over backwards to do anything that they can to find a reason not to improve the situation for tenants.
What we hear from the opposition is that the amendments are minor and may be necessary but we should not do them anyway. What we hear from the opposition is that they do not worry about consistency of position. They assure people that they like tenants but they do not want to actually do anything for tenants: “The amendments might be minor, they might be necessary, but we should not actually act on them.”
What we have heard today is that we have an opposition spokesperson in this area who has clearly not spent time engaging in the detail of what this particular piece of legislation is doing. He is a lazy opposition person in the area. He has not demonstrated the capacity or the willingness to engage in the policy development of this important area. It may be that it is fun to come up with tortuous metaphors that can be used to try to describe what is going on. It would be better if he looked at what was happening with the amendments, if he looked at what was happening with the legislation and what their effect was.
These amendments primarily achieve three things: firstly, they modernise outdated legislative provisions and they update the act to reflect contemporary community expectations of tenancy law. That is a good thing. Secondly, they address gaps that have emerged in the administrative provisions of the act and provide a seamless framework for the resolution of disputes. That is in everyone’s interest. Thirdly, they reduce the administrative burdens on landlords and tenants, and they take a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video