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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 658 ..

Amendments of a verbal or formal nature may be made, and clerical, grammatical or typographical errors may be corrected, in any part of the bill by the Clerk acting with the authority of the Speaker.

Mr Kaine: It is hardly a typographical or grammatical error, Mr Speaker, with due respect.

MR SPEAKER: It is tidying up, Mr Kaine.

MR STANHOPE: On that point, if I may, Mr Speaker: we passed legislation last week, the Legislation Bill 2001, which deals precisely with the point. I am sure that you followed the debate with great interest, Mr Kaine. We provided last week that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel can in these circumstances amend any legislation to correct these sorts of typographical and grammatical errors.

MS TUCKER (9.04): The Greens will be supporting Mr Stanhope's amendment. It defines more closely the process for terminating a lease by a lessor. In order to be consistent, Labor's amendment No 22 simply changes the heading of division 12.2 to "Termination by tenant" and the guts of the matter is in the new division 12.3-termination by lessor. It requires the lessor to apply to the magistrates court for termination orders. If the lessor needs to enter the premises occupied by the tenant, they can only do so after getting a court order or warrant.

This amendment also lays down guidelines for the magistrate which provide a level of protection against hardship for the tenant and the lessor and which allow the court to refuse to make a termination order if it finds the matter has been or is likely to be resolved. It also provides ground rules for the termination of leases and the issuing of warrants for eviction. It was surprising to me that these provisions were not already included in the bill. The Greens are pleased to support Labor's amendments which, in part, rectify the situation.

An issue which has not been addressed is the use of minor transgressions of a lease as a rationale for landlords precluding tenants from exerting an option to renew. I hope to be able to address this issue through the Conveyancing Act at a later time.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (9.06): The government supports the amendment. It merely codifies existing practice.

MR SPEAKER: Do you have an amendment, Minister?

MR STEFANIAK: I do. I move amendment No 1 to Mr Stanhope's proposed amendment No 20 [see schedule 1 part 6 at page 688].

The amendment is self-explanatory and does codify existing practice.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (9.07): Mr Stefaniak's amendment is a sensible extension of the amendment I have proposed and the Labor Party supports it.

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