PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Contact us | Advanced search |   search
  1. Home
  2. Hansard
  3. Legislative Council by date
  4. 1 June 2000

Fair Trading Tribunal

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript | « Prior Item | Item 34 of 34 | Next Item »


About this Item
SpeakersRyan The Hon John
BusinessAdjournment


    FAIR TRADING TRIBUNAL
Page: 6407

    The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.24 p.m.]: In 1998 we had high expectations when Parliament passed the Fair Trading Tribunal Act. For the most part, I cannot find many flaws in the Act. Sadly, however, the performance of the Fair Trading Tribunal has not met our expectations. The tribunal is supposed to be a forum for resolving disputes between builders, insurers and home-building clients. According to the Act, the tribunal is supposed to be accessible, its proceedings are supposed to be efficient and its decisions are to be fair. The Act says that proceedings before the tribunal are to be determined in an informal, expeditious and inexpensive manner. The Act gives the members of the tribunal, those who hear and adjudicate disputes, wide discretion to cut through long-winded legal procedures, allowing them to cut to the chase quickly. The most significant problem with the tribunal, as I see it, is the ease with which matters before the tribunal can be delayed. For people who have complaints to bring to the tribunal about shoddy building work, delays can mean severe family stress or huge expense in finding alternative accommodation while at the same time having to meet mortgage repayments or face the loss of investment income.

    What is of greater concern is that so many of these delays are caused by administrative slip-ups by tribunal staff. I have raised this problem in the past. The Minister and officers from the Department of Fair Trading assure me that efforts are being made to improve the situation. Recent history demonstrates that there is still a long way to go. For example, Mr and Mrs Moore of Ambarvale lodged a complaint with the Fair Trading Tribunal 18 months ago, in January 1999. It took until September 1999, nine months later, for their matter to be allocated two days for a full hearing. Unknown to them, the builder's solicitor had successfully applied to the registrar of the tribunal days before the hearing to change the hearing into yet another directions hearing. Unfortunately, no-one was told. This meant that no evidence was taken and the matter was adjourned. Mr and Mrs Moore arrived with eight witnesses, one of whom had travelled from Queensland.

    The next available date was in November, but for only one day. That hearing resolved that all of the brickwork in the building had to be demolished. The only matter left to be determined was whether any building could take place on the slab. That was due to take up another hearing day. The next hearing date was set down for January this year. Unfortunately, tribunal staff neglected to issue notices to all of the parties. Therefore, that date was abandoned. Another hearing was set down for 23 February. Two days before the hearing the builder told the registrar that he had changed solicitors, and the new solicitor—who, incidentally, came from the same firm—needed time to be briefed. No dates were available during March, April or May because the builder had submitted a medical certificate. I have already questioned the value of this medical certificate, because at the time the builder said he could not attend the tribunal he was seen working heavy equipment on another building site.

    I intervened on behalf of Mr and Mrs Moore and contacted Deputy Registrar Ms Lindsay Cox about two weeks ago. I was assured that a new hearing date would be set urgently but that nothing could be done until the tribunal member returned the file to the registrar. I felt like asking why the file was not returned immediately. Today, Mr and Mrs Moore are still waiting. There has been no building on their land for nearly two years. Almost every adjournment has been the result of rorting from the builder or administrative slip-ups from the tribunal. Last week another matter was abandoned in the tribunal because staff failed to provide a Greek language interpreter. Clear instructions were given at the previous hearing that an interpreter was required. At least four people turned up for the hearing, including the builder, who came from Bathurst. They wasted their time, and this matter too had to be allocated another date.

    Other complaints about the tribunal include the difficulty of getting transcripts of its hearings. Section 33 of the Fair Trading Tribunal Regulations states that any person may apply to the registrar for access to the records of the tribunal. Yet a constituent told me that those records are only made at the discretion of the tribunal member hearing the case, so sometimes they are not even available. Regulations provide for people called assessors. These are experts who are tasked to inspect building sites where there is a dispute and provide a quick and independent assessment of the building work. These staff would be extremely useful when the issue in dispute is a technical question about the quality of the building work. Independent assessors could speed up the resolution of matters enormously.

    The law has made provision for them since 1998, but so far none has been appointed. One of my constituents told me that when she requested one two weeks ago, she was told by the tribunal member presiding over her case that this aspect of the legislation had not yet been implemented. Section 7 of the regulations also provides for the chairman of the tribunal to issue a code of conduct for members of the tribunal. There is yet no code of conduct for members of the tribunal. They are, of course, judicial officers but they are not, like magistrates and judges, subject to a complaints body like the Judicial Commission, which considers complaints of misconduct. I could go on much longer about the Fair Trading Tribunal. Suffice it to say it needs reform, like so many other aspects of building industry consumer protection.

    Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.
    ________________

         Contact us | Job opportunities | RSS feeds | Site help
Copyright & conditions of use | Privacy | Authorised user login