Page 2927 - Week 09 - Thursday, 18 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This amendment extends the circumstances under which the tribunal can substitute a tenant to include circumstances where a domestic violence order has been made. On advice from the Women’s Legal Centre, we suggest that this legislation will be improved as a result of this amendment. Clause 17 allows the occupant of premises to apply to become a tenant where a court has made an order to remove the tenant from the premises. This clause is intended to apply, in particular, in situations of domestic violence. The government’s amendment adds a provision that where individuals have given an undertaking to the court they will leave the premises. That can provide the basis for another occupant of the premises to become the tenant.
Unfortunately, the amendment does not fully respond to the strong representations from the Women’s Legal Centre and the Welfare Rights and Legal Service in relation to this clause. Both groups have argued that the clause should go further because exclusion orders and undertakings to the court can be difficult to obtain. According to the latest figures, exclusion orders and similar undertakings are made in fewer than one in five orders. Additionally, magistrates are reluctant to make exclusion orders at the preliminary order stage. Victims of domestic violence are very vulnerable when the tenancy is not in their name and they face the loss of the family home. It can also allow perpetrators to apply considerable pressure on victims by using the tenancy and their rights as tenants against victims and any children or other dependants.
Our amendment addresses this problem by allowing a broader range of circumstances to be considered by the tribunal, allowing the tribunal to exercise some discretion when determining whether there is sufficient basis for substituting the tenant. This would allow victims of domestic violence to achieve an earlier state of certainty regarding housing tenure, an important step in rebuilding after the end of a troubled relationship. The government has argued that this places undue strain on the tribunal, as it may be placed in a position of ascertaining whether domestic violence has or has not occurred. If we can ask the tribunal to determine whether a serious dispute between neighbours constitutes grounds for eviction, we can give it discretion to hear arguments for and against the substitution of a tenancy. I commend the amendment.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (4.46): The government has also proposed an amendment to clause 17. Government amendments Nos 3 and 4 are subject to the outcome of this amendment. I propose to move those amendments immediately after conclusion of debate on this amendment. Those amendments make it clear that the tribunal may make a substitution order to a person who has given the court an undertaking to leave the premises.
Dr Foskey’s proposed amendment would permit the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to make an order that removes a tenant from a residential tenancy agreement and substitutes an occupant in the tenant’s place in a broader range of circumstances, including whenever a domestic violence order is made. Under the Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2001 a domestic violence order may be a final order, or it may be a short-term order known as an interim or emergency order. In addition, a domestic violence order may require the removal of a person from a property, or it may prohibit conduct or the damaging of property. Domestic violence orders can also be conditional, depending on the facts of a case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .