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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 577 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (12.14): I hear what members are saying about lengthy delays in the tribunal and in the Magistrates Court--and in all courts in the territory. However, these amendments complement further amendments that will include a 28-day turnaround in dispute resolution. I continue to urge members to retain a form of Tenancy Tribunal and streamline that process, as was the intent of my original bill. I urge members to support these amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15.

MS TUCKER (12.15): I move amendment No 5 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 part 1 at page 690].

The point at issue here is whether an assigned lease, the lease the original tenant has sold or transferred to someone else, should attract the protection of this act. In accepting a lease from another tenant, the new tenant ought rightly be entitled to the same protection as the original tenant, if it is warranted. There have been court decisions that support the view that a new lease is commenced on assignment. It strikes me as inappropriate to legislate via this act to remove protection established through these courts' decisions.

Amending the bill in this way does not mean that an assignee would be entitled to protection under the act simply because the original tenant enjoyed that protection. Clause 12, "What leases does this Act apply to?" would still operate in exactly the same way. This amendment simply provides that the assignee is taken to have entered into a lease, and all other applications and conditions of the act would still apply--if the lease is prescribed under the act or if the nature of the business is commercial and occupies more than 300 square metres, et cetera. For example, this amendment would allow a tenant who has bought a commercial business, had the lease assigned to them and changed it to a retail business with the landlord's approval to be covered by this act.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (12.17): The government opposes Ms Tucker's proposed amendment to clause 15. The simplification is inconsistent with government amendment 5 to clause 15, which I will speak to now. It is a replacement clause which clarifies the operation of proposed section 15. As framed, section 15 does not work in situations of multiple assignments.

Take, for example, a lease that is within the operation of the act but the lease is subsequently assigned to a person for whom the act would cease to operate, for example, as in clause 12 (7). Under the existing formulation, a further assignment back to the original leaseholder or another person for whom the act would otherwise operate may not have the effect of bringing the lease back under the operation of the act. The bill, particularly with the qualification at clause 12 (2) (b), makes it clear that the application of the act only ceases during the period of the first assignment. The

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