Page 2361 - Week 07 - Thursday, 4 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
provision, if included in the tenancy agreement, would not apply. Whilst on the face of it and in fact this is a good move, I wonder—and it has been discussed with me by some stakeholders—whether there may be an unintended consequence here where some landlords may inadvertently exclude women because they fear that the break lease clause will not apply and this may disadvantage an owner of a property. I certainly hope that that does not take place. In some cases there may be discrimination in the light of the previous legislation that we discussed. Unfortunately, legislation sometimes has unintended consequences. It is something I am sure the parties will obviously be looking at to make sure it does not happen.
The bill will require all leased residential properties to have smoke alarms installed in accordance with the building code. The bill places an obligation on the tenant to replace the battery in a smoke alarm installed in the premises whenever necessary under the new clause 63A. Hopefully this makes rental properties safer for tenants, provides better protection for the landlord’s asset, and also makes it clearer for both the tenant and the owner as to who is responsible.
In conclusion, we support this bill. I would like to pass on, once again, the comments from some stakeholders that they feel it does not go far enough in addressing some of the big issues, for example, occupancy rights. We are very supportive of people experiencing domestic violence getting the assistance they need. We support better fire safety for rental properties, which is good for the tenant and the landlord.
It is unfortunate that, to some degree, the stakeholder consultation was poorly run in such a quick time frame by the government. Nevertheless, the consultation took place generally over a long period. Hopefully all stakeholders felt that they were able to submit their feedback on the draft amendments. I am not sure whether the minister is going to respond in his remarks to the scrutiny committee’s comments in relation to the deprivation of property issue that was raised in scrutiny. That is, I guess, the only remaining concern for us. We are happy to support this bill today.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.56): The Greens will be supporting the amendments before us today as they are positive moves and represent at face value a careful balance between the responsibilities of both tenants and landlords which, as members know, can be difficult to achieve. The bill provides a range of sensible and practical amendments to the act. I will not go through them all in detail. I would, however, like to touch on a few key points.
The clauses that relate to the new pre-arranged break lease arrangements will both provide tenants and lessor with greater clarity and may also reduce the sometimes acrimonious situations that arise when life circumstances change without notice. The new section relating to postings—in other words, relocation due to employment requirements—is also reasonable and, I can imagine, quite welcome to the many Canberrans who work in either the public service or the defence forces in particular. In fact, considering the current agenda of the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, to design future public service hubs around his political agenda, I think it is quite a timely amendment and that people, given their jobs, may be able to pack up and move somewhere else.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video