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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 115 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The government's amendment is intended to clarify for the Magistrates Court that it has jurisdiction both to hear and to determine certain matters under the Leases (Commercial and Retail) Act 2001. Essentially, this is tidying up after the mammoth new law that the Assembly brought in in 2001. A technical problem has been identified by the courts and these amendments fix up the problem. This follows a case last week in which the magistrate pointed out that, although the intention appeared to have been to carry across to the Magistrates Court all the powers to hear and remedy that the Tenancy Tribunal had had, some powers had been lost in the translation. In a similar vein, I am interested in pursuing in a separate bill the power to reopen leases which the Tenancy Tribunal has, but that is a matter for another day.

My amendments today seek to improve the clarity of the final version to avoid any future confusion in the Magistrates Court. The first amendment, whereby I am deleting "decide"and inserting "hear and determine", will make the wording consistent with the wording of section 6 (1) of the Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Act and remove any doubt as to the Assembly's intent for the court's powers.

The second amendment, at the end of proposed new section 144 (2), will add "and the Magistrates Court is not limited in any amount it may order to be paid in relation to an application", because when an application is made in the civil jurisdiction of the court for an amount over $50,000 the court will not hear the matter unless the amount claimed is reduced to $50,000. The first part of proposed new section 144 (2), as proposed in the Attorney-General's amendment, clearly would allow the court, in the tenancy jurisdiction, to hear the matter, but might not allow the court to make an order for an amount of more than $50,000. This amendment will remove any doubt in that area.

The third amendment inserts the word "as"after "1982"in proposed new section 144 (3). I think that there may have been a grammatical error. The addition of the word "as"here will make the intent of the clause clear. Although not an issue in the most recent Magistrates Court decision, at least one magistrate has commented on similar wording in the Tenancy Tribunal Act to the effect that the word "as"was probably intended to be there. Without the word "as", it could be read in a different way. Although this is not the intention, without this amendment the clause could be read as a restriction on the powers of the court.

I thank the Law Society and the Commercial Retain Tenants Association for their work in this law reform process.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for the Environment) (4.22): The government will accept Ms Tucker's amendments. I do feel the need to say on behalf of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel that they would be prepared to argue with me that we should not, but it is not a matter of great moment to them and the government is happy to support them.

Ms Tucker's amendments agreed to.

Mr Stanhope's amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.

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