Page 985 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 15 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
these clauses won’t need to be used. However, in situations of longer-term accommodation, tenants may need to be moved on once they have finished using the services. While the provisions in consequence might be necessary, it is important to monitor their use.
More contentious is the change in this bill to allow public housing providers—ACT Housing tenants, in effect—to have a tenancy tied to repayment of previous debts. An argument that has often been used by ACT Housing when tenants face eviction or cannot be re-housed, despite the fact that they have made an agreement to repay outstanding debts. ACT Housing has argued that their hands are tied by the legislation. This amendment will allow ACT Housing to take back tenants with outstanding debts.
It is important to note that the arrangement needs to be endorsed by the tribunal and will not, therefore, become a default. The tenant’s union has argued that housing already has the ability to enter into an administrative agreement to repay debt rather than needing to tie previous debt to current tenancy. There is also a concern that tenants could be more vulnerable—facing eviction, for example—for failing to meet payments from previous debt, even if they were up to date on current tenancies.
I think it is important to take away the argument that ACT Housing has, that it is the legislation which prevents it from reaching mutually acceptable agreements and that, as long as the arrangements do require express endorsement from the tribunal and consequently remain in the public eye, I think it is on net effect a benefit. We will be supporting the bill in principle in the hope that proper consideration will be given by the Assembly to the amendments, which we have put forward.
Mr Speaker, I apologise that these amendments are being circulated now but, because of that and because we wish due consideration to be given to those when we reach the detail stage of debate, we ask that the debate be adjourned until this afternoon.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (11.08): In conjunction with my colleagues Mr Seselja and Mr Stefaniak, the opposition will support in principle the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2005. At this point I would like to thank all those courageous tenants and other members of the community who have spoken out; they are the catalyst for some changes in this bill.
I would also like to thank the less senior public servants, if I can put it that way, on the front line who are in the best positions to give frank and fearless advice to drive change. I commend them and encourage them to continue to do so.
Mr Speaker, it is imperative to note at the outset that this is a positive step towards ensuring that the existing legislation is now regularly reviewed for shortcomings. I hope that all members of the Assembly can agree, in a unified manner, as to the best approach to protecting the rights and responsibilities of ACT tenants. The implementation of ongoing changes will continue to rely on help from the community and tenants alike.
One of the areas of challenge is that of debt. I believe the key instruments in the bill for recovering debt in a sensible and measured manner are a sound improvement, allowing for a tenant to meet their obligations in relation to outstanding moneys owed. In addition, the Commissioner for Housing is able to seek recovery of unpaid rent via the Residential
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .