Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (6 November) . . Page.. 3795 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

a tribunal to impose costs for blameworthy conduct such as delay. It would prevent costs in ordinary matters. If the current obligation for parties to bear their own costs of proceedings before the tribunal is removed from the Bill, the scheme, I think, could be open to some abuse. Parties might initiate proceedings with little or no fear of repercussions, and injustices might occur where one party, usually the lessor, incurs costs arising from temporary absence from work and legal costs. I have come to the view that the no-cost arrangements are often quite open to abuse, and in fact certainly are abused on occasions; but, again, I accept, as with all these amendments, Mr Speaker, that the Assembly takes a different view.

MS REILLY (6.30): Mr Speaker, I want to raise a few issues in response to some of the comments by Mr Humphries. I mentioned earlier some of the support for having a tribunal, but I think we need to look at what the tribunal can mean, apart from the aspect of ensuring that the ACT stays in line with the other States that have a tribunal. I think it is going to be quite disappointing for some people when they realise that the tribunal is not going to be totally independent; that it is part of the Magistrates Court system. That aside, I am sure it can work successfully in that way. I think the agreed amendments that gave more members to it will, in fact, improve its efficiency and may, in the long term, prove a cost-saving measure. I think Mr Humphries's concern about his purse may not be realised in this way.

What needs to be recognised is the amount of work that this tribunal is likely to have. Mr Humphries suggested that some of the tribunals set up in other States have larger numbers of people that come under their jurisdiction, but it must be remembered that in the ACT 30 per cent of people are in residential rental properties. This gives you a quite big group of people who potentially may want to appear before this tribunal. I think this needs to be recognised, and it needs to be recognised that the tribunal needs proper resourcing. Why do we want to set up a new tenancy tribunal and do it on the cheap? Are we setting it up to fail before we get started?

I think it is important that we ensure that the tribunal has the opportunity to operate effectively. There will be opportunities taken, probably by lawyers, particularly, to test some parts of this new law. And I think it would be a pity if we have people waiting for weeks and weeks to have the opportunity to appear before the tribunal. In the Magistrates Court and the Small Claims Court there is a backlog of work because they cannot keep up with requests to deal with matters under the current Landlord and Tenant Act. We do not want to replicate this through setting up a tribunal that is not properly resourced.

I think there are efficiencies to be gained by dealing with matters quickly. There are then no further costs associated with people living in unsafe and insecure conditions in their rental properties. Surely the savings that could come through from the Family Court, the health system, the education system and family services could be recognised in dealing with rental tenancy matters expeditiously. For this reason, I do not agree with some of the comments made by Mr Humphries in terms of costs in not setting up the tribunal well in the first place.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .