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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4860 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. This is the Government's response on how to do it. What we have is the ACT Liberal Party taking the Federal Government's response and applying it specifically to our Act. It is an improvement, but it does not go far enough. It is interesting to see that we are following so closely on the Federal Government's response.

MR SPEAKER: Ms Horodny, I think you have an amendment or some amendments to move. You might like to do that now. It will save a bit of time.

MS HORODNY (4.35): Mr Speaker, I will not be moving the first two of the three amendments that are on the paper that has been circulated; I am moving just the third one, which is an amendment to Mr Humphries's amendment No. 6. I move:

Proposed new clause 9, subsection 36(2): After the words "an owner", insert "or a tenant".

This amendment is about applying consistency to the way that the tribunal approaches owners and tenants alike and is basically to remove any perception of any differential treatment, I suppose, by the tribunal between owners and tenants.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for Fair Trading) (4.36): It does not make any sense, I would argue, because section 36(1) relates only to unconscionable conduct by the landlord. Section 36(2) spells out what was not to be regarded as unconscionable conduct and, therefore, the amendment does not make any sense.

Amendment negatived.

Proposed new clauses agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

[COGNATE BILL:

ENERGY EFFICIENCY RATINGS (SALE OF PREMISES) BILL 1997]

Debate resumed from 3 December 1997, on motion by Ms Tucker:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Energy Efficiency Ratings (Sale of Premises) Bill 1997? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 4 they may also address their remarks to order of the day No. 5.

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