Page 1565 - Week 06 - Thursday, 2 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
parts of the ACT public service. In this case I understand there was a very small team working on these reforms, and that means that when a person is sick, goes on maternity leave or leaves the position it can have a significant impact on the progress of work.
This bill provides, for the first time, objects for the act. These are recognised at the front of the Residential Tenancies Act—the importance of stable and secure housing. Although these objects are broad in scope, it is pleasing to see them included, and they set the tone for the rest of the act. Defined for the first time in ACT law is “co-tenant”. It is great to see people who live in share houses get the legislative recognition they deserve. It provides a clear legislative path for people to join and leave share houses, including a mechanism for returning bonds. There are a number of ways this could have been done, and all have their drawbacks; nonetheless, at least there is now a system for dealing with this and legal recognition of co-tenancies. It has to be an improvement on the current situation, where in some cases people have to completely move out, get their bond back and begin a new tenancy when someone leaves a share house. That process is ridiculous.
The bill also provides a new section which explains what an occupancy agreement is. This is much more comprehensive than what exists in the current RTA. It is great, for example, to see that the catch-all, “is an occupancy agreement if it is not a residential tenancy agreement” has now gone. Emergency accommodation providers are now explicitly dealt with, and housing support programs are defined. The bill introduces new occupancy principles and makes occupancy principles mandatory. All of these things are great. With these and other amendments over the last few years, the RTA is now a much more comprehensive piece of legislation and, I think, even fairer. The bill being comprehensive is not necessarily the only thing that we wanted, but there have been some fairness improvements as well.
However, there are three amendments that the Greens want to make. The first is non-controversial, as I understand it, and I understand that both of the other parties will be supporting it. This amendment relates to leaving a co-tenancy. As the bill before us is currently drafted, a co-tenant may stop being a party to a residential tenancy—in other words, leave the share-house—but they have to provide written notice at least 21 days before they intend to move out. The remaining co-tenants and the lessor then have 21 days to respond. If they do not respond within 21 days, consent to leave is taken to be given. The problem with this is that if a co-tenant wants to leave, it is theoretically possible that they may have to wait until the day that they are meant to leave, or want to leave, to find out whether or not their co-tenants and landlord approve. My amendment simply reduces the time frame for the remaining co-tenants and lessor to get back to the person who wants to leave, from 21 days to 14 days, which will be at least a little more workable for the co-tenant.
Amendments 2 and 3 concern termination of fixed-term leases and mandated mediation. I understand that these are more contentious among members, and they are in separate amendments. These amend the Residential Tenancies (COVID-19 Emergency Response) Declaration 2020, which I will hereafter refer to as “the declaration” because the name is far too long. The declaration is in fact a regulation, and it is not something that a member who is not the relevant minister can amend. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video