Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill 2008

About this Item
Speakers - Constance Mr Andrew; Deputy-Speaker; Hornery Ms Sonia; O'Dea Mr Jonathan; Terenzini Mr Frank; Turner Mr John; Hazzard Mr Brad; Kerr Mr Malcolm; Speaker; George Mr Thomas; Williams Mr John; Maguire Mr Daryl; Acting-Speaker (Mr Thomas George); Humphries Mr Kevin; Burney Ms Linda
Business - Bill, Message, Agreement in Principle, Passing of the Bill, Motion

CONSUMER, TRADER AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL 2008

Page: 7115

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 6 May 2008.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [10.57 a.m.]: Last night I spoke about an article written by Alex Mitchell in which he made reference to wealthy Bondi Junction solicitor and Mayor of Waverley, George Newhouse, who was required to resign his position as part-time member of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal—an appointment he had held since 26 June 2002. Alex Mitchell stated that the resignation letter is a peculiar document: it is not dated; it is addressed to the Minister for Fair Trading, the Hon. Linda Burney, and not the chair of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, Kay Ransome; and it is stamped "received" by Minister Burney's office on 2 November and stamped by the department on 6 November. The single-sentence letter offers a retrospective resignation, saying, "I resign from the Consumer, Tenancy and Trade Tribunal effective 22 October 2007." Alex Mitchell notes that Newhouse could not even manage to use the correct title of the body on which he had served.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack, a member of the Legislative Council, filed a freedom of information application in relation to this matter. She indicated that the response shows that Mr George Newhouse's letter is undated and, significantly, there is no notation indicating acceptance of the resignation by Fair Trading Minister Linda Burney. Among the documents the Hon. Catherine Cusack received in response to the freedom of information application were two legal opinions given to the tribunal chair, Kay Ransome. They were written during the heated public row over the validity of Newhouse's candidacy in opposing Liberal candidate Malcolm Turnbull. Alex Mitchell also stated:

As a matter of protocol a holder of public office would normally write to the Governor resigning; however from time to time holders of public office will write to the relevant Minister tendering their resignation—as far as I am aware such a letter is effective as a letter of resignation.

Ms Sonia Hornery:

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I concur with the point of order that was raised with and ruled on by Assistant-Speaker, Mr Grant McBride. The member for Bega will bear in mind that this matter is about the composition of specific—

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: Further to the point of order: I am referring to schedule 1 [23] of the legislation, which relates to the Professional Practice and Review Committee. I am certainly within the leave of the bill.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I concur with the rulings that were made last night on this issue. The member is out of order because he is not referring to the composition of the tenancy tribunal.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: In relation to professional practice, the four-point code relating to members of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal states:

In their private life members should exercise discretion in their social contacts and activities.

Members must act impartially, avoiding conflicts of interest both real and apparent, and must carry out their duties as members without bias and without yielding to external influences.

Members should, if engaged in another profession, occupation or business, take care to ensure that those activities do not undermine the discharge of their responsibilities as a member, and

Refrain from engaging in partisan political activity which is directly related to the work of the tribunal which may impinge upon the perception of impartiality of the members or the tribunal.

That code relates directly to the Professional Practice and Review Committee process within this bill.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I refer the member to previous rulings. I concur with those rulings. The member will confine his remarks to the bill before the House, which relates to the composition of the tenancy tribunal

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I am talking about the composition.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I will not debate the issue with the member for Bega. He will adhere to my ruling.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: It is extraordinary that members of the Government are trying to gag me on this point because we know that the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Is the member for Bega canvassing my ruling?

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: No, I am speaking to the legislation.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to do so concisely.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I point out that the Minister in her agreement in principle speech stated that two independent people will be appointed by the Minister. That is an oxymoron because time and time again the Minister has appointed people to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal who fall outside that code, for example, Raymond Plibersek, who again—

Ms Sonia Hornery: Point of order: We are talking about the bill, and in particular the composition of the tribunal. We are not talking about personal examples.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the member for Bega will stick to the ambit of the bill before the House.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I refer to schedule 1 [23]. I encourage the member for Wallsend and the member for Heathcote to read the legislation and the Professional Practice and Review Committee provisions in particular.

Mr Paul McLeay: I would encourage you to stop smearing people that you don't know and have no views on.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I again point out that the Minister in this Chamber spoke about the appointment of independent people to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, and on the track record of the Minister and the Government—

[Interruption]

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Members will direct their comments through the Chair. Members may raise a point of order if they have an issue with another member's contribution to the debate.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: The Opposition has no faith in the Minister's ability to make appointments to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal free from political bias, let alone in the name of independence. I am entitled in debate to make reference to a number of examples, such as Richard Plibersek and Brian Pickard of the Sunshine Coast who were also involved in the candidacy of Darryl Maine.

Ms Sonia Hornery: Point of order: The member is making personal accusations again instead of addressing the composition of the tribunal.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The member for Bega will refrain from making personal reflections. He will confine his remarks to the bill.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: I am referring to schedule 1 [23] which relates to the Professional Practice and Review Committee process. The Government may not like it, and it is sensitive to my citing of examples, but that highlights the problems within the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal—

[Interruption]

If the member for Heathcote is going to comment he should make a point of order. The Government has introduced this amending bill because the performance of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal has not been up to scratch, as I have highlighted throughout this debate. The Opposition continues to express very serious concern about the independence of members of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, as reported in the article by Alex Mitchell. The Opposition will continue to highlight those problems whether or not the Government likes it. If the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal is described as a Labor lolly shop, the problem needs to be addressed. The Opposition will continue to express concern about the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal.

On behalf of the Opposition, I thank the many user groups whose views have assisted in the consideration of the bill. This legislation is a hopeless attempt to deal with the fundamental problems that now bedevil the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, the biggest problem being its politicisation by successive Ministers through appointment, lack of accountability and poor performance management. The Government is sadly mistaken if it thinks the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal has been operating well for its constituents. The Government lives in denial. The tribunal has a cultural problem that is all about arrogance, detachment and political mateship. The stench of corruption is never far from this Government, and sadly that seems to have contaminated the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal.

Ms Sonia Hornery: Point of order: Certainly those terms are not appropriate in relation to the composition of the tribunal.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bega has concluded his speech.

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.08 a.m.]: It is clear that the changes proposed by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill 2008 are both sensible and sound. As honourable members have already heard, these changes resulted from a thorough and transparent review process involving extensive consultation. Not only has the tribunal's Act been subject to a statutory review, but the tribunal itself has also been subject to an independent operational review. Many of the recommendations of the operational review have already been put in place, and the tribunal deserves commendation for taking a pro-active and committed approach to enhancing the services it provides, and improving its internal processes and procedures.

The chairperson and deputy chairpersons of the tribunal, the deputy registrars, tribunal members and the tribunal's administrative support staff have contributed to the review processes in many ways, and have greatly assisted in the finalisation of the reforms in the bill. Providing its valuable service across the whole of New South Wales throws up some special challenges for the tribunal. For example, the services of the tribunal need to be accessible to people across the whole State, many of whom live in regional or more remote areas.

Even in this day and age of the Internet and instantaneous global communications, the tyranny of distance remains a significant factor for some communities. To help address that challenge, the tribunal now has part-time members in Bourke, Broken Hill, Dubbo, Orange and Tamworth, providing a better service to communities in the west and the far west of New South Wales. The multicultural nature of the State's population can also present communication difficulties, due to language and cultural differences. In addition, limited individual literacy and capacity to understand the tribunal's processes may present specific communication difficulties.

The tribunal continues to examine ways and means to address these challenges to ensure that its services are accessible and comprehensible. Professional interpreters, such as Auslan interpreters, are freely available at the hearings. A CD-ROM that provides information and a simple guide to the tribunal in a number of community languages has been released. Since the tribunal's establishment in 2002 it has persevered to meet these challenges and continues to provide a flexible, affordable and accessible means to resolve disputes that otherwise could become the subject of expensive and protracted legal action.

In some cases the outcome of legal action is that there are no real winners, which emphasises the importance of the tribunal's dispute settlement role in seeking to bring the parties together to reach a mutually agreeable resolution. Conciliation can be an excellent tool for resolving disputes at an early stage. In some cases the parties in dispute have not been in productive communication with each other. One party to a dispute may not even be fully aware of the underlying problem, or may be oblivious to the impacts of their actions on another. The conciliation process brings the disputing parties together in an informal setting in seeking to reach agreement. That not only provides a very simple and affordable means of dispute resolution but when the agreement is reached voluntarily it is highly likely that both parties will stick to the agreement. However, should the conciliation process be unsuccessful and move on to a hearing, the tribunal still provides a relatively informal, flexible and affordable means to finalise the dispute.

The tribunal has also been using other means to improve its performance and to assist community members to better understand their rights and how the tribunal functions. The tribunal has held focus groups with its stakeholders and has been using the outcome of those focus groups to help guide and inform its processes and procedures. The tribunal has also held information sessions on such matters as residential parks and public housing. I am certain that the proposed amendments will build on the work already being undertaken by the tribunal and will ensure continuation and the improvement of high professional standards and excellent client service. I am pleased to give my full support to the bill.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [11.13 a.m.]: It is good to read that the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill 2008 makes some sound and necessary changes to the workings of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. While transparency has been lacking in the Iemma Government, it is particularly pleasing that the bill provides for the sound recording of all hearings to improve the transparency of the tribunal's proceedings and to assist in rehearings and appeals. In contrast, the creation of the Social Housing Division within the tribunal is not a positive move. This division would cover tenants in premises owned by the Government. Why should not all tenants be treated equally? Why should there be a special division for tenants of government-owned properties? Are public housing problems so great that public housing needs its own division of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal? One would hope not! I believe that all tenants should be treated equally under the same jurisdiction. I note that the Tenant's Union of New South Wales does not support this proposal and I warn those opposite to be careful when they do not have relevant union support! The Tenant's Union has stated:

The bill replaces the unrealistic seven-day turnaround time for the tribunal to hand down written decisions with a new 28-day period. As members have already heard, the average time taken to provide a written decision is currently well beyond the proposed 28-day period. This must be promptly addressed and there should be greater transparency of the tribunal's performance on this and other relevant measures. I have a constituent who has been left with an uninhabitable home because of the negligence of a builder. The home has been left open to the elements as the family struggle with daily life. They are currently investigating avenues through the tribunal and the Department of Fair Trading. While it may transpire that their case exceeds the $30,000 ceiling for complaints with which the tribunal deals, the tribunal must be competent, capable and prompt in dealing with such issues when they are within its jurisdiction. Unfortunately, feedback from relevant stakeholders indicates that this is not always the case.

The establishment of a Professional Practice and Review Committee for the tribunal is appropriate and needed. That body would have to meet at least three times a year and will replace the Peer Review Panel that apparently met infrequently. The new committee's proposed role relates to one or more of the following matters referred to it: education, training or professional development of members; performance or management of members; complaints against members and remedial or disciplinary action to be taken in relation to any such complaints; trends in complaints or performance, and any other matter prescribed by the regulations. That should help to improve the quality of tribunal members. Unfortunately, quite a few of the appointments to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal have been clearly connected to the Australian Labor Party and are open to accusations of jobs for Labor mates. I have heard such accusations in relation to various tribunal members such as Bryan Pickard, Raymond Plibersek, Claudio Marzilli, Allan Anforth and George Newhouse.

Mr Frank Terenzini: Point of order: I do not know whether the member for Davidson was present when the bill was discussed earlier. I request that the member for Davidson be asked to stay within the leave of the bill.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! As the member for Davidson may be aware, during this debate comments have been made about individuals that are not relevant to the bill. The member is within the ambit of the bill. However, I ask him to bear that in mind.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: I certainly will bear that in mind, and thank you for your ruling. The fact that the bill proposes to make the tribunal more professional and accountable is heartening, although the Coalition will continue to monitor future appointments to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal and the Professional Practice and Review Committee. The importance of protecting those who are often unable to look out for their own welfare is a vital part of consumer protection. The Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill 2008 assists in this regard although amendments may be appropriate in the other place for reasons outlined. Future attention should be given to the request of the Law Society of New South Wales to consider merging the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal and the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. This would involve creating a comprehensive tribunal as per the model of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which deals with a wider range of issues. However, whatever model applies, we must always have a relatively low-cost option offering assistance to those who have rental, building or other consumer issues.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [11.18 a.m.]: I support the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill 2008. I note that among its many objectives it is to include additional requirements as to the qualification of members of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal and to clarify that the powers of the chairperson of the tribunal extend to giving procedural directions with respect to classes of proceedings. The member for Parramatta explained in her agreement in principle speech that the bill arose out of proposed changes following a statutory review of the Act conducted during 2006-2007. The member for Parramatta outlined the review's findings that the policy objectives of the Act remained valid, the terms of the Act remained appropriate, and it continued to serve its objectives. There is essential soundness of the Act and effective functioning of the tribunal. One only needs to look at the amount of work that is processed through the tribunal. In the last financial year 79,826 hearings were conducted in 95 locations across New South Wales. The tribunal carries a massive workload, and for very good reason—because it offers easy access to justice.

It is clear that the review's findings are an endorsement of the tribunal itself. Since its establishment in 2002, the tribunal has continually sought to improve and streamline its operations in keeping with the objectives of the Act. The measures in the bill will pave the way for further enhancements to the operation of the tribunal for the benefit of the people of New South Wales. Of particular interest is the establishment of the professional practice and review committee, which will replace the peer review panel. The statutory review and the operational review examined the issue of tribunal members' skills, expertise and conduct. The operational review noted that a large number of both full-time and part-time members presented a significant challenge for the chairperson in regard to performance management. Therefore, the expansion of this responsibility to the deputy chairpersons and the establishment of the committee is a logical and realistic proposal that will enhance performance management of tribunal members. I particularly note this in view of the caseload of the tribunal

The establishment of the professional practice and review committee will also enhance the independent oversight of the tribunal and will provide advice on the following matters: education, training and professional development of members; performance management of members; complaints against members; and remedial or disciplinary action to be taken. The committee membership will include the tribunal chairperson, the deputy chairpersons, the Commissioner for Fair Trading and two other independent persons as appointed by the Minister. This will enable the appointment of appropriately qualified and skilled persons to help in continuing professional development of tribunal members.

The tribunal has undertaken a number of initiatives to give effect to recommendations of the operational review not requiring legislative amendment. These include matters such as conducting independent research into the information needs of tribunal users through a series of focus groups held in both metropolitan and regional areas. A formal communications strategy has been developed for the provision of information and awareness programs for the community. The tribunal has also developed a partnership with Aboriginal tenancy services, which involves regular consultation and provision of information tailored to the needs of Aboriginal people. In addition, a policy and procedural framework has been developed to maximise the use of, and benefits derived from, the tribunal's conciliation process. In combination with the changes contained in the amendment bill, these measures will ensure that the tribunal continues to provide an efficient, accessible and affordable means of dispute resolution to people across the whole State.

In relation to the establishment of a separate division for social housing tenants, it is very important to remember that there have been changes to the Residential Tenancies Act—specific provisions relating to social housing tenants—and members of the tribunal are chosen for their skills and experience, especially in dispute resolution. Social housing tenants occupy a particular category of people who are sometimes very disadvantaged. The need to take into account the special disadvantage of these tenants—economic, social or otherwise—is extremely important and requires special skills. Having practised as a lawyer in the courts for 12 years, there is nothing unusual about having separate divisions for special cases. It happens all the time and this is just another example. I have talked about special provisions for Aboriginal tenants. It is just a further enhancement of how the tribunal works; it provides for much more efficient and effective use of members' skills and experience and functioning of the tribunal. Given the caseload—79,826 hearings in 95 locations across New South Wales—the validity of the tribunal has been confirmed. The bill further promotes the effective running of the tribunal and, for those reasons, I am pleased to commend it to the House.

Mr JOHN TURNER (Myall Lakes) [11.25 a.m.]: If it is not broken, don't fix it. But the tribunal process is broken and does need to be fixed. We get through a large volume of work in our office in relation to the conduct of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal [CTTT] and I intend to highlight a couple of matters that are typical of what comes through our door. At the last election I was shadow Minister for Fair Trading, and had we gained office it would have been my view that the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal needed a massive shake-up. I do not want to tar everyone with the same brush about what happens at the tribunal, but I believe the tribunal's clear bias towards consumers or tenants prejudices the interests of many who come before it. That is to be regretted and there certainly needs to be major change.

I will highlight a couple of matters that have come to my attention in recent times to illustrate the rightful frustration some people feel about the tribunal. Mr Borg came to see me very recently. The tribunal had made a judgement against him in a case that involved him and a lady. I will deal with the administration of the case, not its details. Mr Borg sought a rehearing of the matter, which was not granted. In fact he sought two rehearings of the matter, in circumstances I will now outline. At the time that he first sought a rehearing a number of matters were not put to the tribunal, but other concerns arose about the administration of his rehearing application.

Sometime in October 2007 Mr Borg received a Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal notification of a hearing on 21 October 2007. He telephoned the tribunal on receipt of notification and advised that his mother was terminally ill and on that particular day he was to take her to Sydney for treatment. The tribunal advised that he would be notified of a further date for the hearing. Mr Borg took that in good faith, but did not record the name of the officer to whom he spoke. A Telstra search of his records verified that a telephone call did occur on the particular day with the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. Mr Borg waited for notification of a new hearing date, but the next thing he heard from the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal was that the matter had proceeded on 21 October 2007 and a judgement had been recorded against him. Mr Borg then contacted the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal to ask why the matter had proceeded on 21 October in view of the previous discussions that he had had. The officer he spoke to—and again unfortunately he did not record the officer's name—said that they had no record of any contact with him and that they would send him an application for rehearing.

The application for rehearing was duly received, completed and returned in November 2007. Mr Borg waited patiently for the application to be processed but, to his alarm, in late January or early February received a letter from the sheriff advising that payment was required of an outstanding judgement debt. Mr Borg then went to the chamber magistrate at Taree Court House where an officer of the court rang the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal and advised of the above happenings. Apparently the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal told the officer that they would send yet another form of application for rehearing. The form was duly received and, to ensure that he had a record of returning the application for rehearing, Mr Borg attended the Forster Court House and faxed the application to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. Subsequently he received a notice of order from the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal stating that his application was not granted because it was out of time. The only reason it was out of time was that the tribunal had not processed his earlier application for rehearing.

On Wednesday 16 April Mr Borg rang the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal at Tamworth and spoke to a person who identified herself as Mel, who stated that the tribunal had found a second file concerning Mr Borg, which contained details of Mr Borg's previous phone calls and other information. Clearly there has been a significant administrative error in this matter. This is not the first case in which these types of administrative blunders have been brought to my attention, but it is the latest. I do not know where Mr Borg will end up in relation to this matter. He believes that he has a legitimate defence, but under the administration that presently prevails he might not have any recourse. The jury is still out on that matter and I am awaiting advice from the Minister and the department.

Mr Withers, the proprietor of G & G Custom Built in Taree, suffered at the hands of the CTTT. In March 2002 Harmony Doors, a proprietary company operating in the Taree area and a chief supplier to G & G Custom Built, a company owned by Mr Withers, closed its operations in Taree. That company used to supply vinyl doors and panels to joinery businesses in the area, such as the business owned by Mr Withers. Mr Withers was later informed that the proprietor of Harmony Doors was aware that the doors that he had sold were defective. It is understood that hundreds of doors that were sold were heat sealed at the incorrect temperature, which in time caused the vinyl bonding to lift from the doors and panels.

From 2002 onwards a pattern developed with customers claiming warranty on new kitchens supplied by G & G Custom Built and other kitchen manufacturers due to this problem. Mr Withers has been in business since 1987 and has a reputation for quality workmanship. The fault was found only in doors supplied by Harmony Doors and not in the workmanship of kitchens. Following advice from the Department of Fair Trading, under part 2C of the Home Building Act, statutory warranties, the kitchen manufacturer in this case is liable to replace the faulty doors and panels. The kitchen manufacturer—namely, Mr Withers—would then be able to make a claim on the material supplier for reimbursement of costs.

Following this advice from the New South Wales Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, a claim was lodged against Harmony Doors Pty Ltd for the cost of the replacement doors, which was limited at that time to $25,000. I understand that other kitchen manufacturers also pursued Harmony Doors for reimbursement of costs but they were unsuccessful in contacting the proprietor. On 30 August the CTTT conducted a hearing in relation to this matter but Mr Saunders, the proprietor of Harmony Doors, did not attend the hearing, nor did he respond to any communication. A second hearing was set down on 11 September 2002 and again the respondent did not appear. The tribunal ordered that the respondent, Harmony Doors, pay G & G Custom Built $25,000.

All attempts by the CTTT to enforce payment against Harmony Doors were unsuccessful. In this case Mr Withers is out of pocket $131,917 for the rectification jobs. Mr Withers bore those costs himself because of his good reputation and his concern for people who were dudded by Mr Saunders. However, the CTTT's jurisdictional level limited him to only $25,000 and it has been a bit of a toothless tiger in that it has been unable to enforce any judgement. There is a downside or a sad side to this case. Leaving aside Mr Withers, who was bold and courageous enough to continue to meet his obligations even though they were obligations caused by somebody else, a number of firms in the Taree area have gone out of business because they were not able to recover sufficient funds through the CTTT to enable them to continue their businesses.

I refer to another matter that involves an elderly lady who had a matter before the tribunal. At the hearing detrimental remarks were made about a person who was assisting this lady in the preparation of her case—a professional person with a good reputation in my area. The lady was distressed by the remarks that were made by the tribunal member, conveyed her concerns to the tribunal and asked for the member presiding over her matter to withdraw from any future hearings. This lady did not receive a reply to her letter. As another hearing was scheduled to occur she phoned the tribunal and advised it that she had not received a proper reply. She was told that it was solely up to the member to determine whether or not to excuse himself from future hearings. That member presided at the next hearing and as a result this lady felt quite prejudiced.

That is another example of the arrogance of members of the CTTT. As I said earlier, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Many similar cases have been reported to me. People are frustrated about the actions of some CTTT members. I appreciate that in every case there is a winner and a loser. I do not resile from telling people that, and I do not easily entertain a sore loser; however, I do entertain people whom I believe have not had a fair hearing or who have been treated unfairly or with disdain. The necessity to examine the operations of the CTTT is long overdue. I do not know whether this bill goes far enough but, if nothing else, it should bring some humanity back into the process of tribunal hearings.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.35 a.m.]: Other Opposition members have already indicated that the Opposition will not be opposing the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill 2008, although amendments will be moved in the Legislative Council. I wish to direct my comments to certain provisions in the bill and refer to a number of problems that are raised regularly by my constituents on the northern beaches of Sydney. The legislation that gave rise to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal [CTTT] was introduced after earlier legislation that gave rise to similar tribunals that have as their primary purpose the desire to provide an alternative avenue to courts—an avenue that is cheaper and that produces results without complexity.

Underpinning all this is an assumption that whatever is provided will be provided in a way that results in fairness and due process. People who appear before the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal often come away feeling that they have not been given due process and that they have not been treated fairly. That underpins a problem for governments of any political persuasion—that is, that in an effort to try to achieve cheap and ready justice one does not achieve justice at all. That is not to say that reasonable decisions are not made in many instances. However, when unreasonable decisions are being made in the numbers that are currently being made by the CTTT, we have a problem in New South Wales.

If we had in our courts the same number of unhappy litigants that we have in the CTTT, clearly we would have a major problem in our judicial framework. This Government has not been prepared to act as quickly as it should in relation to various issues that have arisen. In September 2005 there was a review of the CTTT. Why has it taken the Government 2� years to come up with any changes? Perhaps this Government does not know how to address some of the problems within the CTTT. I have received reports from my constituents and I know that members on both sides of this Chamber have received reports, notwithstanding the fact that Government members are seeking to talk up the Government's changes to the CTTT.

When applicants or people on the receiving end of an application go to the CTTT, they tend to get information about likely outcomes that is not all that clear. They are not necessarily told how the cost arrangements work and they are not told how best to conduct their proceedings. They do not get told anywhere near enough to ensure they are prepared when appearing before the tribunal, as would be expected in the small debts division of the Local Court or generally in the Local Court, District Court or Supreme Court. But once at the hearing many parties find they are at the mercy of the whim of the day because the members hearing the applications are not legally qualified: they do not have any particular understanding of the requirements for due process, how to conduct a fair and reasonable hearing or how to apply the principles of natural justice. Even cheap justice should not operate in that fashion.

This bill proposes that the deputy chair have legal qualifications, but that may not be enough. The bill and the submissions from various groups recognise that those people with no legal background appointed to the tribunal appear to struggle when conducting hearings. In fact, the members do not appear to even realise that they are struggling with the process. If the intent of this bill is to continue to appoint such people as tribunal members, the proposed peer review panel may go a little way to address some of the shortcomings—but in my view it will not be anywhere near enough. Considering the number of appeals to the Supreme Court from tribunal decisions, if this Government is fair dinkum about transparency and if the real purpose of this bill is to provide cheap justice at the very least there should be some kind of exterior transparent benchmarking process for each member on how to conduct hearings and, more particularly, addressing how many decisions are appealed to the Supreme Court.

Even that will not be an absolutely final indicator of competency because many people go to the tribunal because it is cheap. That is really the only attraction: it is cheap and quick. It should not be cheap, quick and nasty, but on many occasions that appears to be the case. I suggest that the Government—if not the Government, the chairperson of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal—should consider establishing a benchmark for tribunal members regarding appeals. A review should be carried out on each matter that goes to appeal. Not everybody will be able to afford to appeal against a decision; the majority of people will just have to cop the poor decision they get. A benchmarking review process should be put in place either through a legislative framework or administration by the chairperson of the tribunal for decisions subjected to appeal.

The review process should look at what the Supreme Court found regarding the judgement: Was the decision confirmed? Was it overturned? More particularly, what were the issues, the failings or the shortcomings the Supreme Court observed in the conduct and result of the hearing? Perhaps then tribunal members will understand that they are at the forefront of carrying the banner of justice for many people in New South Wales who literally would not be able to afford justice except through the CTTT. If this review process were introduced and combined with the peer review panel, perhaps improved outcomes could be achieved. Many people who appear before the CTTT feel that they have not been given a fair hearing.

That brings me to the proposed changes regarding the second rehearing. For many years I performed the role of an arbitrator under the Arbitrations Civil Actions Act. This legislation arose because of the massive backlog at the time in civil claims matters in the Local Court and District Court. The government of the day—my recollection is that it was a Coalition Government—implemented a system to provide an alternative avenue for hearings, which is after all only what people want. Under that Act arbitrators were given the task of hearing matters, but those matters were conducted within a legal framework. Often parties who came before the arbitrators initially did not understand that and thought it would be a bit of a fireside chat. Of course, they were advised quickly that the matter was not a fireside chat; that it was a hearing that had to be conducted usually with regard to the rules of evidence, principles of fairness and natural justice, but sometimes with a little bit of leeway.

Within a year the backlog of matters in the civil jurisdictions of the Local Court and District Court was cleared by that arbitration process. Many matters still were referred to arbitrators for some years after. I recollect that from my hearings and those of most of my colleagues who operated on the northern beaches, the rehearing rate of those de novo hearings was less than 1 per cent. This emphasised that people just wanted the opportunity to be heard. However, they wanted to know also that the process reflected the principles of natural justice and that they had been given a fair hearing. The rehearing provisions in the current CTTT legislation have been interpreted so narrowly by the chairperson that even when it was clear neither party was properly prepared nor understood the full import of the process they were about to take part in, they still were not given the opportunity for a rehearing in most instances. That has been the shortcoming of the current legislation.

If cheap justice is to be available, we must make sure that it is not nasty justice. The chairperson in applying the principles of natural justice should be prepared to interpret the current provisions broadly to allow a rehearing when parties clearly are not prepared to proceed. If one party is prejudiced substantially in regard to costs or being absent from work, it must be taken into account. It is completely unacceptable to simply say as a matter of principle that there will not be a rehearing. Equally, when the tribunal gets it wrong—and that happens regularly because of the lack of legal qualifications or expertise of members often hearing quite complicated cases—the chairperson should have been, and hopefully will be, far more inclined to allow rehearings.

Hearings conducted by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal should not require massive amounts of money. Consumers using the tribunal hearing process—in a substantial portion of cases providing cheap and nasty justice—should not have to jump from the cheapest form of available justice to the most expensive jurisdiction in the country, that is, the Supreme Court, to have a matter reheard. In practical terms it means that most people will just give up and walk away. In other words, the Government basically has said, "Well, you're going to get cheap and nasty justice. We'll certainly say you're going to get an appeal right, but in reality you won't get a practical appeal right." It is important that the rehearing provision is interpreted broadly by the chairperson of the tribunal.

If the tribunal gets it wrong and the peer review determines quite clearly that to be the case or, indeed, if the member wakes up and realises he has got it wrong, or if the chairperson wakes up and realises that the member has got it wrong, then there should be readiness to allow a rehearing. On 4 October 2005 the Law Society made a submission to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act review. The Government may not be prepared to take much notice of that submission, but the chairman of the tribunal should sit down with the Law Society and ensure that in what is rough justice too often—and certainly cheap justice always—matters of legal principle, due process, fairness and natural justice be applied in all matters that come before the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [11.50 a.m.]: The Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill is of great importance to my constituents because businesses and consumers have been affected by this legislation for some years. Previous Opposition speakers have outlined the shortcomings of the legislation for consumers, businesses and tenants. It is important to look at the purpose of the bill, which amends the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 with respect to the constitution, jurisdiction, functions and procedures of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal and the functions, qualifications, education and review of members of that tribunal. On 5 May 2004 the Supreme Court gave a judgement in Krslovic Homes v Timothy Sparkes and Ors. In that judgement Justice Shaw said this about the original legislation:

Interestingly, even Government members have reservations about this bill. I note the presence of the member for Coogee in the Chamber. No doubt he is resigned to the fact that George Newhouse has elected to no longer be a member of the tribunal. The member for Coogee is a member of the Legislation Review Committee of this House. "Legislation Review Digest No. 5 of 2008" stated:

21. The Committee will always be concerned to identify the retrospective effects of legislation which may have an adverse impact on a person—

that is commendable—

22. The Committee notes that inserting a time limit retrospectively for within which committee proceedings may be recommenced for failure to comply with a tribunal order could unduly trespass on a person's right to order his or her affairs in accordance with the current law when such orders and proceedings were made, and refers this to Parliament.

The House is entitled to a response to those concerns when the Minister replies to this debate. The committee has put forward a matter of commonsense: In any orderly society, having had a decision, people should be able to go about their business on the basis of that decision having been reached and not have their affairs interfered with by retrospective legislation. The committee's concerns do not end there, because it then refers to the delegation of legislative powers and the commencement of the Act by proclamation. Clause 2 of the bill provides the Executive with unfettered control over the commencement of an Act. Earlier the member for Wakehurst referred to cheap and nasty justice. I should insert the word "law" instead of "justice". In its report the committee stated:

23. The Committee notes that the proposed Act is to commence on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation. This may delegate to the government the power to commence the Act on whatever day it chooses or not at all—

Members will recall that yesterday the Speaker tabled a list of unproclaimed legislation—

While there may be good reasons why such discretion is required, the Committee considers that, in some circumstances, this may give rise to an inappropriate delegation of legislative power.

24. Although there may be good reasons why such discretion is required such as allowing time for appropriate administrative arrangements to be made, the Committee has concerns about commencement by proclamation and asks Parliament to consider whether the Bill commencing by proclamation rather than on assent, is an inappropriate delegation of legislative power.

That matter should be addressed. No doubt members are concerned about the actions of the Executive and the way the Parliament must be a bulwark against the arbitrary intrusion of the Executive and stand for the protection of people's rights, be they business owners, tenants, landlords or consumers. That area certainly needs to be addressed when the Minister responds to the debate. Earlier I mentioned the judgement of Justice Shaw, which was delivered on 5 May 2004. By way of background, a hearing had occurred before the then Fair Trading Tribunal on 28 June 2001 and directions were given for the parties to make written submissions, which were finalised on 17 August 2001. After some delay, which is not explained by the evidence, Mr Baker, who had been a member of the Fair Trading Tribunal, delivered a series of orders said to be made under the Home Building Act 1989 on 7 February 2003. So we have a delay. The member for Myall Lakes outlined a number of cases in which injustices, delays and administrative blunders had occurred. So the case Justice Shaw was considering was in no sense isolated. Justice Shaw said:

That is not an unusual situation to come before a tribunal—

It was ordered, inter alia, that the issue of defective workmanship had been determined at the experts' conclave, various claims made by the applicant (the first and second defendants in the present proceedings) were dismissed and the respondent (the plaintiff in the present proceedings) was ordered to pay 10 per cent of the applicant's costs as agreed or assessed. The orders as published on 7 February 2003 did not disclose a reasoning process, and the orders made issued under the seal of the Tribunal.

Promptly, and within the relevant statutory period, the plaintiff sought reasons for these orders, and was then advised by the Tribunal on 7 April 2003 that reasons were not available by reason of the fact that the Tribunal member who dealt with the matter was "no longer a member of the CTTT".

On 14 April 2003 proceedings were commenced by the plaintiff in this court seeking an order inter alia that the tribunal provide reasons for its decision—which is a pretty reasonable request. On 6 May 2003 Mr Justice Adams in the Supreme Court made by consent orders that the tribunal provide reasons, and such reasons were purportedly published on 6 June 2003. Mr Baker had apparently been requested by the registrar of the tribunal to provide reasons in accordance with the orders issued by the Supreme Court, flowing from the orders of the decision on 7 February 2003. Although those reasons were issued under the seal of the tribunal and under the heading "Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, Home Building Division", nevertheless, under the sub-heading "Reasons for decision" Mr Baker said:

At the end of those reasons Mr Baker described himself as a former member of the Fair Trading Tribunal. Apparently, that was news to the parties involved. It was clear that Mr Baker did not have any power to make the orders that he did—something that was agreed by all parties. The member for Wakehurst mentioned the words "cheap and quick", but look at the timetable in this matter. The process certainly was not quick or cheap—as one can well imagine, the legal expenses were quite substantial—but it was certainly nasty. So at least it complied with one of the Government's three apparent requirements.

This legislation comes before the House with no real explanation as to what will be reformed. The case for establishing a separate Social Housing Division is totally unclear. It is not required by any of the bodies that represent the people who would come under the jurisdiction of that division and it was not recommended by either the statutory or the operating review. Will Government members provide information on the constituency that this division seeks to serve? It will stigmatise the people who appear before it when there should be equality before the law. Why should one class—using the word "class" may well be a Freudian slip because it may be an act of class warfare by the Iemma Government to separate tenants into particular classes—

Mr Daryl Maguire: It could be Matt Brown's tenants—he's got enough of them.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: The member for Wagga Wagga assists the House in this debate. There is no justification for stigmatising our fellow citizens. Unfortunately, it is typical of the legislation that comes before the House and through which the Government seeks to divide the people of New South Wales. The Minister should address the issues that I have raised about this poorly explained legislation, which has also caused concern among some Government members.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [12.05 p.m.]: I am pleased to see in the Parliament students from country and regional New South Wales. The Armidale School is a great school. The Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill 2008 affects the whole of New South Wales and I am surprised and shocked that the Minister for Fair Trading is not in the House for this debate and that every member of the Parliament is not present to discuss the problems with the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal [CTTT]. I doubt whether there would be one member who has not received complaints about it.

The member for Bega led for the Coalition on the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill 2008 and documented our concerns, which will be addressed in the Legislative Council. I place on record some issues that have been brought to my attention. I have made representations on behalf of constituents who have had trouble with the CTTT. In the past the tribunal has not had enough teeth. Its members ran the tribunal in their own way. I am a long-time advocate for tenants but I have become very concerned about the attitude of the tribunal towards landlords who appear before it. If landlords in country and regional New South Wales are not looked after, houses will not be available to rent.

The Department of Housing does not have enough public housing. However, I cannot believe that in this day and age landlords who appear before the tribunal are asked to produce balance sheets to support their case. Landlords often appear before the tribunal because a tenant is behind in the rent. Another complaint concerns people who are told they will be part of a telephone hook-up during a tribunal hearing. One person waited for the call all day. He rang the tribunal on three occasions and was told that they did not know what time his case would be heard but to stay by the phone. He found out subsequently that the case was dismissed at 9.30 a.m. I made recommendations on his behalf to the Minister, who replied in part:

Hopefully the bill will address such matters. It was the tribunal's fault, yet there was no recompense and no mechanism for the parties concerned to appeal the decision. Mr Farmer was invited to lodge an application for a new hearing that should include a request to the registrar of the tribunal for the application fee to be waived. That is an example of what is occurring in country and regional areas. It has also been brought to my attention that tribunal members are flown into country areas for hearings. In Lismore we had a major problem in that regard, which has now been addressed to some extent.

Tribunal members are worried only about what time their return flight leaves. That is what happens in country and regional areas. The plane may be late, and the chairperson is concerned about what time he will fly out of the area. The member for Cronulla indicated earlier that he is concerned about that issue, and I agree with him. I cannot believe a separate Social Housing Division is to be created. Why is that happening? Why are we segregating people who live in public housing? They are no different from any other tenant; they are simply tenants of the government. Why should we put them in a separate box? Could a similar case be made for people who live in caravan parks or aged care facilities? Should we start putting them into separate categories?

Sadly, the Minister for Fair Trading is not in the Chamber but the Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Wollongong, is at the table and I am sure that she will take my comments on board. Only a few weeks ago we were cracking down on public housing tenants and now they are to be put in a separate box. The rules for living in public housing have been upgraded and include the requirement for a good neighbourhood policy. Yet, for some unknown reason, the Government is trying to develop a separate Social Housing Division. As the member for Cronulla said, we know of no-one during the consultation process who fought for the creation of such a division. It is most unfair that public housing tenants are to be segregated into a separate division, with its own hearing process.

As I said earlier, I am a great advocate for tenants. However, under the current process if a tenant is four weeks behind in paying rent it can take up to three months to make that tenant vacate the premises, if ordered to do so by the tribunal. The length of that process concerns me. In the past people from country or regional areas who lost their case in the tribunal had to appeal to the Supreme Court. That is another issue of concern. The bill will allow a tenant to appeal a decision of the tribunal. But people from country and regional New South Wales cannot simply travel to Sydney to have their matters heard in the Supreme Court. Naturally, they just throw their arms in the air and walk away from the problem.

Hopefully, that issue and others will be addressed by the 23 proposed amendments. The registrar and senior members of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal should be legally qualified persons. I am pleased that the hearings will be sound recorded in future, as not having a record of proceedings was a major problem in the past. Not too many people who have walked through my door were happy with the previous process. The member for Bega said that the Coalition reserves its right to consider the amendments in the other place. The concern in my electorate is clear: the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal has not been run in a professional manner, which is what people want when they need decisions to be made.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [12.15 p.m.]: I address the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill 2008 as a motor dealer with 30 years experience. On very few occasions I have attended a tribunal hearing. As a trader, I have first-hand experience of the process that was followed through conciliation. In business, one makes a choice and obviously must recognise that all consumers are important. Generally a trader errs on the side of the consumer and in most cases a resolution will be reached before it is necessary to take a matter to the tribunal. On one occasion as a trader I believed I was right but the consumer wanted to take the matter further so I attended a tribunal hearing. Traders walk into a tribunal hearing knowing full well that the odds are weighed against them. Time is money, and traders want to spend the minimum time engaged in that process. Usually the trader's employees attend to give evidence in support of the case and relate what happened firsthand. Obviously those employees should be at work, not sitting in a tribunal hearing. Generally the first-up brief from the conciliator is that his decision is final. If the trader wants to appeal the decision he needs to go to the Supreme Court, which is an absolute and utter joke.

In most instances in which I was involved, I allowed the consumer to put his evidence first, I then gave mine and I accepted the tribunal's decision. I could then get on with my business. I walked away from those hearings and paid the money but it was a case of getting on with business. I knew full well that, regardless of what evidence I provided in the hearing, there would be something for the consumer who lodged the claim. On the occasions that I was part of the process I viewed the tribunal as a revolving door. I saw many conciliators—the same person never came back. As to the functions of the Professional Practice and Review Committee, I suspect the people who put them together must smoke dope. The bill states that the functions of the committee are to review and provide advice on matters, and such matters are to relate to one or more of the following:

(a) the education, training or professional development of members

Good luck! Not one of the people who have that conciliatory role will be eligible for long service leave—they are in and out. So the Minister is dreaming. The next matter is:

(b) the performance or management of members

Who will appeal that? Generally a trader will want to get on with his business and forget about identifying the issues that concern him about the tribunal. A further matter for review and advice by the committee is:

(d) trends in complaints or performance

You would be flat out getting these people in your employ, let alone complaining about their performance. That is just blowing wind because if one complaint were lodged they would be off. The Government is dreaming if it thinks the functioning tribunal will have long-term employees who can be trained to conduct conciliation in the best possible manner to benefit both consumer and trader. A structure must be put in place that guarantees that members are appointed in the correct manner. At present the overarching committee makes the decisions. I was never involved in the politics of the matter, but I now find that they are political appointments. Fallen angels of the Labor Party are being appointed to these positions. It is a joke—it is walking-around money so they are not disadvantaged.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Jobs for the boys.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: Jobs for the boys. That is no way to build a workable structure. If the structure is going to work professional people have to be engaged. The tribunal cannot be aligned with the party in government, which is certainly the case here—it has been proven and spoken about in this House. It is amazing that the Government should protest about discussing in this House the appointment of people. It is our role as the Opposition to raise such matters. We must highlight where the Government is failing to look after the people of New South Wales. If the Government decides to appoint its fallen angels to these jobs, it has to take it on the chin. We will continue to pound away and we will not be gagged. If evidence can be found of the Government putting substandard people into jobs because it owes them something, that will be recognised and brought before the House. The Government should get used to it. The member for Wollongong is shaking. She is fairly bullet proof, but not all Labor members are. We will take a few of them on.

Mr Allan Shearan: The truth is on your side, Noreen.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: The truth is, but we will not be gagged. The sound recording of hearings is definitely a step forward, but obviously someone should review the transcripts, identify the best possible way to expedite hearings and develop better conciliation processes. If the hearings are recorded but a process is not developed as a result, it will be a waste of time. In my time there was no record of what was said during hearings, so this is definitely a step in the right direction. The segregation of social housing tenants is very interesting; I cannot understand it. It is most unusual to decide that certain tenancy arrangements need to be made outside the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal and dealt with in another area. It is amazing that the State Government has admitted that it has a major problem with housing its tenants. It now says that it has a major problem with conciliation.

I guess one outcome of the bill is that it will highlight the deficiencies of social housing in this State—which is important—complaints about social housing, the Government's reaction to those complaints and its inability to resolve the issues in most cases. When matters are resolved the process is generally protracted; people wait a long time to have their issues dealt with. It is interesting. Perhaps the Government does not consider servicing that sector of consumers to be a priority. That would be of great concern because there are a lot of disadvantaged tenants. The selection of the chair and deputy chair will be of great interest to this side of the House. If the overarching structure has the right direction and the right people, those engaged in conciliation will be able to perform much better. They will obviously start to conduct their business in a more professional manner if the professionalism comes from the top down.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Joe Scimone.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: We will certainly look at that situation. I guarantee that we will be watching very closely to see whether Joe Scimone gets the job. We have our eyes on him; we are tracking him. We are waiting for him to slip in through the back door and bob up somewhere in the system. He will get his reward from this Government for all the things he has had to do—cover-ups, lies and whatever else. He has obviously run around fundraising for different individuals and making sure that developers were paying their way. Having said that, we look forward to the amendments. We will watch developments closely.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [12.26 p.m.]: How refreshing it was to listen to the contribution from the member for Murray-Darling, who has experienced the business world firsthand. Many members on our side of the House, including me, have been in business. They have had dealings with the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal and continue to do so as elected members of Parliament. Listening to the member for Murray-Darling gave me great confidence that he understands the operation of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal [CTTT]. He understands the issues involved and has brought them to this place. I congratulate him. He is often the first to his feet in many debates.

Several members have made contributions today. I will not cover all the issues in the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill 2008, but will highlight a number of matters. Firstly, the bill makes a number of amendments, one of which I think is unfair. It is the amendment that allows a member to increase from 7 to 28 days the time within which a statement of reasons for decision must be given. When the tribunal's operations were moved to Wollongong from Wagga Wagga, when it was a regional entity, there were time delays in the management of issues in the wider area. Even though we have Australia Post, email and other modern technologies, time delays persist. Sadly, the decision by previous Ministers to centralise the tribunal's operations has severely disadvantaged people in regional areas time and time again. Correspondence requiring people to appear before the tribunal is sent to them but by the time they reply it is often too late: the orders have been sent and the hearing is scheduled to go ahead.

I point to one example—I will not name names because I understand that this could still be an issue—involving a mechanic in a transmission business. About two years ago he did a job and the customer was not happy. An attempt to resolve the problem failed and the matter was set down to go before the tribunal. The mechanic received a letter from the Office of Fair Trading stating that the tribunal hearing would be on a certain date and asking him to notify the office if the date did not suit. The gentleman concerned wrote back and said that it did not suit him as he had arranged to take his 16-year-old son to Grafton to start university and he could not physically drive from Wagga Wagga to Grafton and return in time for the hearing. My office made inquiries with the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal and was told that nothing could be done because all the paperwork had been sent to the person who was to hear the matter. We were told that the gentleman did not spell out all the details or provide documentary evidence of what he was doing at the time so the hearing would go ahead. The document that I have relating to this matter states:

A brief phone call from my office 10 minutes ago established that the hearing was held in absentia. As limited as the information was, it was placed before the tribunal. That gentleman has now been asked to provide technical information and data to the tribunal within seven days. He has been asked for information of a technical nature because he purchased goods from a supplier—so he is the meat in the sandwich, so to speak—and it will take a number of days or weeks to obtain the data that is required from the supplier. Members of the tribunal are given 28 days to respond to a technical request from a third party, but someone who is operating a business will be given only seven days to respond, which I think is unfair.

I have said time and again in this Chamber that I was a business operator for 23 years. Business operators now have to rely on a third party to provide technical data, and constituents such as the one to whom I referred will be severely disadvantaged. I am concerned, as is the Minister, about the social housing issue. Social housing, an important piece of infrastructure, is supplied to people in our community for a number of reasons. Yesterday the member for Dubbo referred to a gentleman who lives in the Gordon Estate. I do not have a problem with the department's policy to integrate communities, individuals and families in the wider community. We must pursue policies of that nature to ensure fairness and equality.

I am more than happy to support any initiative that helps families in Dubbo who are struggling—an issue to which the member for Dubbo referred. However, what is the point of having a policy that integrates families and community members in the wider housing scene when they are then segregated from the laws that must be upheld by all citizens? The Department of Housing, community housing and Aboriginal housing are all entities that provide accommodation for people with challenges or special needs. The Department of Housing, in a cost-shifting exercise, is giving the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal an administrative task that should be undertaken by the Minister for Housing. If the Minister were fair dinkum about his job he would support the Department of Housing and resource it adequately.

A few weeks ago the tribunal sent an eviction notice to a tenant in my electorate who was $65 behind in his rent. He was alarmed and upset about being singled out by the Department of Housing and went to his local member's office with his eviction notice. Sometimes good tenants get behind in their rent. This legislation is not what it appears to be. The Minister for Housing, who is responsible for the provision of housing for disadvantaged people, is burdening the Minister for Fair Trading with administrative tasks and her department will be overloaded with 12,000 applications from the Department of Housing. People within that department are not doing their job. I understand that 12,000 applications a year are dealt with by the tribunal.

The Minister for Fair Trading, who is in the Chamber, will have to find the necessary resources to administer this area as a result of the failure of the Minister for Housing to support his department. I said earlier that I believe in fairness and equality. I want Aboriginal communities to have decent housing and decent opportunities and I want the most disadvantaged in our communities to be supported, but this legislation will not achieve that. By default, this legislation will create another class, as much as I hate to use that word. In the brief time that I have available to me I wish to refer to the qualifications of members of the tribunal and others. I have often referred in this Chamber to orders that are made by the tribunal that are unenforceable in another State. Other members referred to the fact that, technically, the tribunal is a court of law. A person can choose to go to the Local Court or he or she can choose to have the matter dealt with by the tribunal. However, those orders are unenforceable in other States, which is a problem.

Anyone who tries to enforce an order in another State—it could be an order for an individual to pay $1,000 or $10,000 for default of a contract, faulty goods, or whatever—would be faced with many problems as those orders are unenforceable. In Victoria people can go to the Dispute Settlement Centre. Earlier I referred to an individual who was seeking recompense, through the tribunal, for a failed business transaction. This individual took the matter to the Dispute Settlement Centre in Victoria. Ms Walsh, the person responsible for signing off on the agreement, said that as part of the settlement between the two parties I would remove a statement that I made in Hansard so that the individual could pay off the balance of funds that were owed. I referred in this House to the order that had been made by the tribunal. I said that it was unenforceable and that several things had occurred in Victoria. [Extension of time agreed to].

The person in charge of the agreement that was signed by the two individuals said that in order to facilitate settlement I would remove from Hansard a statement that I had made. I advise the Minister for Fair Trading that on only three occasions in the history of this Parliament have matters been expunged from the record. The Minister should ensure that members of the tribunal are given adequate training to ensure that orders such as that are never made. If that person had understood the operations of the Parliament he or she would have been aware that that was not possible.

Ms Linda Burney: I will make sure that that is part of the training.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The Minister will have an opportunity to reply to the debate.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: I thank the Minister for her interjection, as this is an important issue. In a former life the member for Murray-Darling was a motor dealer and I was a furniture and electrical retailer. Retailers and business people get very upset about the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal when someone who is incompetent and who does not understand the technicalities makes decisions about the future of their businesses. I will give one example. The tribunal is always a last resort for businesses. We do everything we can to avoid it. In most regional towns the local residents who operate the Department of the Fair Trading office try to do their best to achieve an outcome, but some matters do end up at the tribunal. I ended up there twice, and on both occasions the tribunal member saw fit to rule in my favour, but I was asked in the agreement process, "Look, why not just give the person a toaster and $500 cash and let them take the lounge home, and they will go away?" I do not see that as a reasonable solution to a technical problem. We were discussing a technical issue and the tribunal members did not understand it. Therefore the onus was placed on me when I was asked that question. If the chairperson had understood the product's engineering, he would have been able to make a better decision or one that perhaps satisfied everyone.

I have been excited about this matter. I have had limited time to go through my files but I can tell the Minister that more training needs to be done in understanding industry technicalities. As someone who has been involved in the business community for many years, I shake my head at some of the tribunal's decisions, given that someone with basic engineering or technical understanding of an industry could hear a claim. I am disappointed that the bill proposes the establishment of a social housing division in the tribunal. I believe the Minister for Fair Trading should work through this issue with the Minister for Housing, otherwise she and her department will be loaded up unnecessarily with disputes. There is no need for that to occur. The Minister for Housing should do his job by supporting his department and ensuring that some of those 12,000 orders are not issued.

The tribunal will be used almost as a de facto department of the Department of Housing to achieve compliance. That was not and should not be the case. People should not be getting those orders unless they rightly deserve them. People should not be placed in situations that alarm them. People with disabilities come through my office holding notes that they do not understand. They do not have the skills or the ability to deal with them. We find that we have to do that for them, but we are happy to do so. I ask the Minister for Fair Trading to insist that the Minister for Housing support his department and provide the resources needed to deal with this issue professionally. Otherwise, Minister Burney, you will be loaded up with a problem that neither you nor the tribunal needs.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [12.43 p.m.]: I should like to make some brief remarks on the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill 2008, concentrating mainly on the tenancy section. I note that the bill includes a clause to establish a social housing division of the tribunal. I do not fully understand why the tribunal would want that, but I do not oppose it. However, I am concerned about the reason the Government wants to spin off a whole division as part of the tenancy tribunal process. In my electorate I deal with a significant number of issues concerning public housing for the disabled or aged people, or housing in general. The Department of Housing also manages the Department of Aboriginal Affairs housing component and in some areas the public or social housing that is provided under the management of the local Aboriginal land councils.

Last week I met with some members of Moree Aboriginal Land Council who are responsible for managing 63 or 64 houses. The council has been under administration for three years. During that time the administrator appointed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has not been able to resolve many of the ongoing issues. Many of our land councils have up to 30 per cent of public housing tenants who do not pay rent. The difficulties in managing housing amongst local Aboriginal land councils has become extremely factional to the point where consistent threats are made to damage houses. An astronomical number of houses have been burnt down in places like south Moree, for example. Of serious concern is the number of threats made against people trying to manage social housing, particularly through the land councils.

My concern is that the Minister will inherit a potentially significant issue that no-one is doing anything about but which should be addressed by the Minister for Housing through the housing portfolio. On several occasions I have raised with him the issue about public housing and how it is managed in some areas, given that the Barwon electorate has one of the highest concentrations of public housing in the State. I believe that literally thousands of properties are managed on an ad hoc basis. The Government has struggled for too long with public housing and social housing, particularly in remote areas. By setting up a social housing division the Minister has highlighted a problem that needs to be addressed. The Department of Housing is not coping with many of the issues I have raised, including maintenance and upgrade problems, legitimate house allocation, and the fact that the lands councils are screaming out for help.

One of the major Aboriginal land councils in the Barwon electorate has been under administration for three years without any improvement: 30 per cent of its housing residents do not pay rent and the current rent backlog payment is about $200,000. Significant community assets have not been managed properly. Establishment of a social housing division is not a bad thing, but the Minister's department will be faced with significant work in the future because many people in public housing are not paying rent. The Government said a few months ago that it was getting serious about public housing tenants who are non-payers. Good on you; all power to you. I hope the plan succeeds. But behind the scenes is a significant problem relating to Aboriginal housing, particularly those housing portfolios managed by lands councils. They need a serious hand. If establishing a social housing division is the answer, I am more than happy to work in a bipartisan way to help because those councils really are struggling. It is getting to a point where property is being damaged maliciously.

Last week an officer from the local Aboriginal Land Council told me that a family was evicted from their house—the first eviction for several years. That night four attempts were made to burn down that house. Not much was being done to support the local land councils in dealing with those issues. The point has been reached where more is needed than a social housing division of the Department of Fair Trading. The problem is far more serious and should concern the Department of Housing and the police because I can tell the Minister that on any one day in south Moree there are at least 25 to 30 boarded-up houses that have either been destroyed or burnt down—and I am not talking down my community. That is not uncommon in many of our communities. Highlighting social housing is a good thing, but I assure members that in many of our communities it is a freight train ready to derail.

If the Government is serious about taking on these issues, I am more than happy to help. I have invited the Minister for Housing to my local area to visit some of our communities. Yesterday the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs spoke about Walgett and referred to the fact that the Prime Minister and the Premier had visited the area. I do not think that is a bad thing. However, our management of public housing in remote communities has been extremely poor. We have left people to their own devices, and in many cases their problems have imploded. We need to get back to a system of restoration. If the tribunal allows us to do that, it will be a good thing. However, I believe we are only scratching the surface of the problem; a lot of issues need to be resolved. If the tribunal is the end point, we need to start at the beginning; otherwise the Government will be inundated with some serious issues.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Youth, and Minister for Volunteering) [12.51 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Amendment Bill. My speech in reply will be brief but I want to respond to a number of points that have been made and thank members who have made suggestions, particularly regarding the application of the changes that will come about as a result of this legislation. First I must say I take exception to the member for Bega's assertion about me. However, I will not respond to ill-informed and hurtful allegations.

The proposed amendments clearly demonstrate that the function, structure and operation of the tribunal have been subject to a rigorous and open review process involving thorough consultation through both the statutory review process and the independent operational review. At the time I took over this portfolio the tribunal had already undertaken two reviews and was in the process of implementing the outcomes of those reviews. The support given to the bill's proposals during the debate is a clear indication that the proposed changes are warranted, will be of benefit to consumers, will be of benefit to businesses, and will enhance the operation of the tribunal. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the issue of tribunal members because there has been a lot of mischievous comment on the part of some members of the Opposition regarding this matter.

I am thrilled to be in the Chamber at this time. I note that the former member for Murray-Darling has just joined us and is in the public gallery. It is wonderful to see him. Members opposite have sought to dig up dirt, and they have raised the issue of George Newhouse. Mr George Newhouse tendered his resignation as a part-time member of the tribunal effective from 22 October 2007. I note that his resignation is effective from 22 October 2007. That is all I wish to say about the matter. Despite the Opposition's smears on individual members, all members of the tribunal are there because they have been selected through a merit selection process. Each tribunal member possesses the requisite skills and qualifications required by the legislation to conciliate and determine matters. Tribunal members are allocated according to available resources and areas of individual expertise.

Although the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal falls within the portfolio of the Minister for Fair Trading, it is an independent body—a matter that some speakers in this debate do not seem to appreciate. Each tribunal member is an independent statutory officer responsible for conciliating and determining matters in accordance with relevant legislation. I cannot comment on, or seek to influence, the tribunal's decisions on carrying out its judicial functions. This ensures that the tribunal's decisions are impartial. The proposed amendments to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act in 2008 will also enhance the tribunal's member training and professional development systems.

The member for Wagga Wagga made a number of sensible suggestions regarding the types of training tribunal members should receive. The Government will certainly consider his suggestions. One feature of the legislation is an enhanced review panel, which will provide me with advice in relation to member training and professional development. This will ensure that the tribunal can take immediate steps to assist members in delivering a better service to the people of New South Wales. More generally, the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal offers a valuable service to the people of New South Wales by providing an accessible, efficient and affordable avenue to resolve disputes about the supply of goods and services, and issues regarding residential property. Sixty-eight per cent of people are assisted to resolve their dispute within 35 days, and they do so without the cost of legal representation.

This inexpensive and expeditious outcome cannot be achieved in other legal settings. Most applications cost $32, and pensioners and students pay only five dollars. The tribunal receives over 64,000 applications a year. In the last financial year more than 79,000 hearings were held at 95 locations across New South Wales. Eighty-one per cent of applications were listed for hearing within 28 days of lodgement and 78 per cent were finalised before or at the first hearing. I am sure that, by any standards, people would acknowledge that as an efficient and good outcome. In the same period, 935 written complaints about tribunal services were received. For the benefit of those who sought to criticise the tribunal, this represents only 1.4 per cent of applications received.

The tribunal continues to be at the forefront of New South Wales courts and tribunals with its online application service. In December 2007, 44 per cent of all applications were lodged online. The tribunal is expanding its in-court system whereby tribunal orders are issued at the end of a hearing. Additionally, in the near future sound recording will be made available at more hearing venues, particularly in regional and remote areas. The tribunal provides a unique service in using technology to increase accessibility, timeliness and cost effectiveness. I recently launched the tribunal's communications strategy and the conciliation fact sheet, along with the "10 Top Tips for Conciliation". These educational tools are vital because they explain the benefits of conciliation and assist people in the tribunal process.

Between January and August 2007 nearly 80 per cent of disputes referred to the tribunal's Deputy Registrar Conciliators, where two parties were present, reached a mutually agreed settlement without the need for a hearing. This is a great result, as both parties have ownership of the outcome. Again these results demonstrate the tribunal's efficiency and its commitment to assisting unrepresented people to resolve their dispute at a low cost. In addition, the tribunal's communication strategy will make a whole range of improved educational tools effective over the next two years. The tribunal plays a valuable role in the New South Wales community. The proposed amendments are improvements for a body that is generally functioning well, a body that I am proud to be responsible for in terms of its administration. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

Last modified 02/06/2008 12:41:05 : Update this page