Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2021 Week 13 Hansard (Thursday, 2 December 2021) . . Page.. 4173 ..
3. the figures provided are for orders for enforcement made on application by the enforcement creditor. These orders may be issued by the court without a hearing. The figures do not include orders which may have been made following a hearing. It is too resource intensive to manually extract this data.
(2) Enforcement of an ACAT order is conducted through the Magistrates Court, or other relevant interstate Court where the debtor lives outside of the ACT. Enforcement of a residential tenancy termination and possession order (involving warrants for the eviction of a tenant or occupant) is carried out by the Australian Federal Police.
(3) Over the past four completed financial years (2017-18 to 2020-21) ACAT had 131 cases in which $25,000 or more was claimed in the civil and residential tenancy jurisdictions. The ICT case management system does not collect data on the figure claimed over $25,000. A significant manual data retrieval and analysis exercise would need to be undertaken to determine how many of these claims exceeded $25,000.
(4) In cases where a claim is over $25,000 a claimant may elect to abandon any amount over the cap. That is, the most that could be awarded if successful is $25,000. As the ICT case management system does not collect this information, a significant manual data retrieval and analysis exercise would need to be undertaken to formulate a response.
(5) An ACAT Client Satisfaction Survey was last conducted in 2014, and the results are attached.
(6) The survey instruments for ACAT Client Satisfaction Surveys conducted in 2014 and 2021 are attached.
(Copies of the attachments are available at the Chamber Support Office).
Suburban Land Agency—Belconnen development(Question No 536)
Mrs Kikkert asked the Minister for Housing and Suburban Development, upon notice, on 12 November 2021:
(1) Further to the answer to question on notice No 471 in which the Minister advised that the Request for Proposal released to the market that contained three blocks comprising the Circus Site Precinct and the former Water Police Site were to be considered as one package and given the Place Design Brief document and the A Connected Waterfront Precinct document published by the Suburban Land Agency (SLA) do not make clear in any way that they were being sold as one package, why, when the SLA documents do not suggest in any way that the Circus Site Precinct and the former Water Police Site were considered as one package, were they being considered as one package.
(2) Did the Government receive any feedback from submissions that the consideration of both these sites as one package made the land purchase less desirable.
(3) Did all submissions address both sites; if not, how many only addressed either the Circus Site Precinct or the former Water Police Site.