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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3786 ..

MS TUCKER (9.27): We are happy to support this too. The earlier date will ensure that the effects of the changes can be enjoyed earlier. It seems a reasonable time to allow for the changeover period.

MS DUNDAS (9.28): I strongly support this amendment to bring the commencement date back by a year. I think the government took an unacceptably long time to prepare this bill. There were long periods where nothing appeared to be happening. Bringing it back to 2006 will mean that vulnerable tenants will not have to wait a year longer for protection. The government should get straight onto developing the standard agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 22, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 23.

MR STEFANIAK (9.28): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 6 at page 3813]. In speaking to this one I will also speak to my amendment No 3, which I will move after this. This particular amendment would add a note that, after six weeks, the occupancy agreement should be in writing. It then refers to section 71E (ba)—that is my amendment No 3—which would insert that an occupant is entitled to the certainty of having the occupancy agreement in writing if the occupancy continues for longer than six weeks.

We feel there should be a clause stating that, after a set period—and we think six weeks is reasonable—a caravan park owner, the grantor, should sign an occupancy agreement with a resident. This period would certainly cover medium to long-term tenants, but would be long enough to exclude, for example, holiday-makers staying in a caravan park. Again, I think that will give added protection to all concerned. I think this is something that people involved with caravan parks and medium to long-term tenants need. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.

MS TUCKER (9.29): This amendment seems reasonable. It is related to the next amendment of Mr Stefaniak’s, which adds a specific requirement to the general occupancy principles that, after six weeks, an occupancy agreement should be in writing. The Greens will support this, but I am a bit concerned that, having received this amendment only yesterday, there has not been a lot of time to work through all the possible issues.

In essence, though, this amendment ensures the rights of residents to, at the very least, receive a clear written statement of the conditions of their occupancy, which is what is enjoyed by residents covered by residential tenancy agreements. It therefore at least gives this disadvantaged group of residents one of the prerequisites for having their conditions checked. I support the amendment and also the next one.

MS DUNDAS (9.30): I will talk to this amendment, and the foreshadowed third amendment of Mr Stefaniak’s. The Democrats are comfortable in supporting these

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