Page 2775 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 16 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
unnecessary requirement on tenants. I understand Dr Foskey’s intention but, in fact, her amendment has the reverse effect to that which she intends.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.53): I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 2784].
DR FOSKEY: This clause extends grounds for immediate eviction to injury to a representative of the lessor if the lessor is a corporation and serious or continuous interference with the quiet enjoyment of nearby premises by an occupier to the premises. Our amendment keeps the first part, but replaces paragraph (d) with “(d) serious damage to premises or other property of a neighbour” and includes “(e) injury to a neighbour or a member of a neighbour’s family”.
Clause 16, as proposed in the bill, relates to the extension of section 51(c) to allow a tenant to be immediately evicted where there has been serious or continuous interference with the quiet enjoyment of nearby premises. It is my view that the remedy of immediate removal should be limited to situations where the matters needing to be addressed are such that they involve imminent danger to personal property. Continuous interference with the quiet enjoyment of nearby premises can reasonably be addressed by the usual remedies for a breach of the residential tenancy agreement, which allow for the tenant to be given notice of a breach, time to remedy the problem or four weeks to leave the premises if they are evicted. There is no urgency that warrants immediate eviction.
To make someone homeless because they have disturbed the neighbours’ quiet enjoyment of their premises is a sledgehammer approach and one that is ludicrous for a government that is spending considerable taxpayers’ funds to address homelessness. Our amendment provides an alternative approach for the protection of neighbours that is more consistent with the schema of the act and the balancing of the rights of tenants and landlords. Our amendments allow for the same protection offered to lessors to be extended to neighbours, that is, if there is damage or injury or the intention to damage or injure, then the tribunal may intervene. This limits the use of this clause to serious circumstances concerning injury or damage.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (5.55): The government will oppose the amendment. The amendment replaces proposed new section 51(d) and adds a new section 51(e). Proposed new section 51(d) states:
serious or continuous interference with the quiet enjoyment of nearby premises by an occupier of the premises.
Dr Foskey proposes to replace it with:
serious damage to premises or other property of a neighbour.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .