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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 641 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

This section does not apply to-

A continuous occupation lease is defined in clause 10:

It may be that the lease as entered into was for a period of less than six months. It might have been for a month or a couple of months. A tenant and a landlord might enter into a lease for a matter of weeks and the lease is then extended to six months. Because it is extended to six months, under the deletion Ms Tucker is contemplating the tenant would have an automatic right to the benefits of section 104 relating to a right to a minimum five-year lease. I do not fully understand why there is this assumption about a lease of, say, less than 6 months that is rolled over and becomes a continuous lease for six months. It seems an incredible trial to me that a tenant can enter into a lease of, say, four weeks, extend it to six months and become automatically entitled to apply for the benefits of section 104 which result in a right to a five-year lease.

I do not fully understand why a one-month lease extends after 6 months into a right to a five-year lease. I am prepared to support Ms Tucker's amendment if she can explain to me what in the relationship between the landlord and tenant could lead to that scenario-namely, a one-month lease after six months developing into an automatic right to a five-year lease.

MS TUCKER (6.13): I think the point of this amendment is that people can get trapped in a continuous occupation lease. The fact that we have this provision that a tenant can get legal advice and then go into a shorter term lease allows that to happen. This amendment was to deal with the problem of those people who are trapped into a continuous lease situation. They will still have the right to have a short-term lease, if that is what they want, with legal advice. That is being supported.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (6.13): I do not have a difficulty with that, Ms Tucker, if action is being taken to deliberately exclude a tenant from a long lease. I am interested in the philosophical approach you are propounding here. The suggestion is that if a tenant enters into a one-month lease and it is rolled over six times that automatically translates into a right to a five-year lease.

Are there not some circumstances where a landlord should not perhaps have the right to restrict the length of the lease? Do we have to assume that all landlords, once they enter the business, must as a minimum offer five-year leases? Is that the suggestion that is being made? Is that the consequence? Can a tenant always demand a five-year lease and can a landlord not oppose a five-year lease?

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