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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4848 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

"Okay; in order to sort it out, it is a reasonable thing, where there is a dispute, to take that dispute to an arbiter, to go to the Tenancy Tribunal". We established the Tenancy Tribunal to sort out disputes. It is a dispute. There is a very sensible set of mechanisms involved there, mechanisms that begin with mediation. As an aside, I say to the Minister that one of the things that we do need to look at, if it comes out of that report, is appropriate funding for mediation.

Clause 7 is the critical part of the legislation, as far as I am concerned. To vote against it is to vote against the ability to bring instances of excessive rent before a tribunal. All we are asking is to bring instances of excessive rent before a tribunal. To vote against it is to exclude the possibility of having the issue determined by an independent arbitrator.

Mr Speaker, I must say that I am disappointed by the approach taken by the Government and by Labor. At the same time, I concede that the proposed amendments are still a significant step forward. This is a significant step forward, but it is not the leap forward that I had wished for. As we go into the next Assembly, it is appropriate for members to look very carefully at working party documents. This working party was set up, as Mr Wood said earlier, quite rightly, to provide advice to the Assembly. We must understand that it was also set up to see where you could get areas of agreement. Where it is clear that there are areas of agreement, I accept that we ought to see what we can do about implementing them.

I know that one of the amendments that Mr Humphries has suggested does that. I must say he has snuck it in, because he does not mention it in his explanatory memorandum. It is to omit section 36 and put in a new section 36. I think the fact that he did not mention in his explanatory memorandum that he was removing a section is quite interesting. However, it is consistent with an agreed position by the working group and, as I say, where there is an agreed position we should look at it carefully.

When we come back into the Assembly - and I am sure this matter of the Tenancy Tribunal will come before this Assembly again - we really ought to be careful in making judgments about the working group. That having been said, I also have to concede that there has been a relatively short time to look at this from the time the working party's report came down. I take Mr Wood's point that when you have a limited amount of time you look at something and say, "I am prepared to go only this far now". I have agreed that that is a step forward. I hope that Labor in government or in opposition, as the case may be next time, will be able to look at it also from the tenants' perspective. I made it very clear when I started with this legislation that I was looking at it from the tenants' perspective with the intent of trying to ensure that the misuse of market position did not continue. That is the approach that I will continue to take.

Clauses agreed to.

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