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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3790 ..

The Tribunal may, on application by a party, while a termination and possession order subject to a condition precedent is in force –

(a) vary the order, or

(b) rescind the order; or

(c) extend the order to a specified date;

whether or not a notice has been served under section 42 (1).

The idea is to allow the terms of the order condition precedent to be varied before a crisis is reached. For example, if a tenant’s income has unexpectedly dropped because of the loss of a casual job, they may know that they will not be able to meet a repayment schedule as required by the order. It makes sense for the tribunal to be able to look at the new circumstances and decide whether it is reasonable to vary the order before such a notice is served.

I do not think that, under the government Assembly amendment, in this situation the tenant could apply to the tribunal to vary the order until they had been served with a notice under section 42 (1). My amendment would allow the tenant to take responsibility for notification of the changed circumstances and at least having the chance to reach a new agreement that would work for everyone.

The agreements are reached in accordance with the tribunal’s standard principles, which have concern for hardship for lessors, as well as for tenants. With the conditional “an unusual circumstance” in the first place, it seems reasonable to us to allow a little more flexibility and for a tenant to have the chance of avoiding the crisis of which comes when they say, “I’m about to be evicted!” I note also that the tribunal has a general power to refuse to hear a matter if it believes that someone is abusing the system.

MS DUNDAS (9.44): I am happy to support Ms Tucker’s amendment. I agree it is much better if tenants who have a genuine commitment to honouring the orders of the tribunal have the ability to go to the tribunal and ask for a variation of a conditional order if they believe that they are going to go into breach. The cycle of eviction notices and tribunal orders I hear about often seems to involve unnecessary drama and grief. The ability to work with the tribunal to stop that cycle before it happens is a positive thing.

Amendment (Ms Tucker’s) agreed to.

Amendment (Mr Stanhope’s), as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 31 to 42, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Schedule 1.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (9.46): I move amendment No 4 circulated in my name [see schedule 7 at page 3813]. The government has decided not to proceed with that particular amendment. This simply omits it. As I indicated, amendment 4—and I will

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