NEIGHBOURHOOD DISPUTE RESOLUTION BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:32): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to provide an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for residential neighbours. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have my second reading explanation (from Thursday 5 June 2008) inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

I guarantee that there would not be a member in this house who has not had to deal with a dispute between neighbours, whether it be in relation to trees, dogs, cats, car parking, noise, alleged voyeurism, car access—all sorts of things. In my experience I have had to deal with many of those situations, some of which seem quite petty, yet they involve a lot of time and often the local council also finds itself in a difficult situation when trying to deal with a dispute between neighbours. From the perspective of a local MP, you might win a vote (if you can sort out the matter) but you might lose a vote, as well, from the other neighbour.

This bill creates the position of a neighbourhood ombudsman. Some people have suggested that we could use the existing ombudsman. I would not have a problem with that, but I think it is better to have a specialist position to deal with disputes between neighbours. Unlike the current arrangement where we have mediation services, the neighbourhood ombudsman could and would be able to require the disputing parties to attend a conciliation meeting or conference. At present mediation does not work in many cases because people do not attend. They cannot be compelled to attend, so one neighbour might want to sort out the issue and the other might not want to participate and, as a result, there is a festering sore in the community over a long time.

I point out that the neighbourhood ombudsman would not be a court. The ombudsman could require the complainant and the respondent to attend a meeting and he or she could look at the written material. The complaint itself must be in writing and it must not be frivolous and vexatious—the usual provisions apply. The ombudsman can require such books, papers or other documents to be supplied to him or her, but no-one is required to produce material which could incriminate them in an offence. It provides a simple mechanism for getting the neighbours together—it might involve an issue of trees, fences, dogs, cats, car parking arrangements, access to driveways—all those sorts of things—so the ombudsman can sit them down and hear from both parties in relation to the matter.

The ombudsman can refer the issue to the police, if he or she thinks fit, or to any other agency. The main thrust of the bill is to ensure that as far as possible the matter is conciliated so it does not have to go to court and it does not have to be dealt with by another agency. The bill has confidentiality provisions to protect the people involved. It has a provision that the ombudsman will not entertain anything which is frivolous or vexatious. The complaint must be lodged within six months of the act or omission (the subject of dispute) or, if it is a series of acts or omissions, within six months of the last of those acts or omissions.

There is a provision that the ombudsman must cause a written summary of the particulars of the complaint to be served personally or by post on the respondent named in the complaint, to avoid any suggestion that the respondent has not been contacted. I am not aware that the position of neighbourhood ombudsman exists anywhere else in Australia, although I cannot give an absolute guarantee that that is the case.

I think it is a simple measure, which would save a lot of pain and heartache. It would save members of parliament a lot of pain and suffering, and also councils—and I have spoken to people in councils. In fact, I was talking to a senior elected member of the City of Onkaparinga last night. He thought it was a very good measure, because these sorts of issues—disputes between neighbours—take up a lot of council time, and allowing them to fester is not good for the neighbours or the wellbeing of the particular neighbourhood.

So, the sensible approach that is reflected in the bill is to bring the two parties together and require them to sit down with the ombudsman to conciliate the issue, and I would predict that in most cases that is likely to occur. Under the current arrangements, where it is optional to attend for mediation, a resolution is not reached because the warring parties do not want to meet.

I commend this bill to the house. I believe it has merit, and I would like to see it taken on board in South Australia. One suggestion last night from the elected member from the City of Onkaparinga was that we could trial it in a couple of council areas. I am not opposed to that. If someone is keen to amend the bill to provide for a trial in one or several local government areas I do not have a problem with that. However, I do not think that is really necessary. There are provisions in the bill for the Attorney-General to provide for regulations to deal with some ancillary matters. I commend the bill to the house, and I trust that members will support it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.