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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 640 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

to all the lawyers in this town, I can see this provision becoming a costed item-"certificate of proof under section 104, preparation thereof, $200".

I am still open to being persuaded, Ms Tucker. I respect the position you have taken on these things, and it may be that I have missed something here. If you wish to contribute to the debate again, I would be interested in hearing whether or not you have concern that the Attorney is not right in relation to this provision.

MS TUCKER (6.06): I need to speak again. I think that we have made an error here. I am glad members have pointed it out. Our intention is not being met by the wording we have, so I understand why people are concerned. Do I withdraw my amendment?

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will vote on it. I think the indication is that we will be voting it down.

Amendment negatived.

MS TUCKER (6.07): I move amendment No 14 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 part 1 at page 690].

Under this bill tenants on a continuous occupation lease are excluded from the right to extend to a five-year term, a provision which does not exist in the current code. It is another example of the bill giving with the one hand the right to a five-year lease but taking with the other.

A continuous occupation lease is a short-term or monthly lease which has been in place for over six months. It captures the classic monthly tenancy, where the tenant is hanging on month to month, and this can be a highly unsatisfactory situation. It would also capture those tenants whose lease has expired and who are in a "holding over" situation for six months. Once these tenants have been strung along for six months, they will never acquire the rights to a five-year term.

This provision would encourage landlords to put tenants on a monthly lease until the opportunity to convert to a five-year lease is lost. It undermines at least some of the intent of this bill. Consequently, this amendment deletes paragraph (7) (c) so as to ensure that the intent of the bill is pursued.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (6.08): This amendment applies to a continuous occupation lease. The government will be opposing it. Such short-term leases are defined in clause 10. Ms Tucker's amendment would turn all short-term leases in the ACT into five-year leases. That is highly inappropriate and obviously counter to what most members would want.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (6.09): I have some difficulty with this proposal, though I am so impressed by Ms Tucker's response to sweet reason in relation to the last amendment that I am almost inclined to support every other amendment she moves today, in acknowledgment of the fact.

I am concerned about the implications of this amendment. Subclause (7) provides:

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