Page 2929 - Week 09 - Thursday, 18 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Amendment No 4 is consequential upon government amendment No 3. This amendment provides that an application for an order under section 107A must be accompanied either by evidence of an undertaking to the court or by a copy of a court order to remove the person from the premises.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 21, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 22.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (4.51): I seek leave to move together amendments Nos 5 and 6 circulated in my name.
Leave granted.
DR FOSKEY: I move amendments Nos 5 and 6 circulated in my name [see schedule 4 at page 2944].
These amendments seek to amend clause 22. These seemingly minor amendments will replace the words “public housing tenancy agreement” with the words “tenancy agreement with the Commissioner for Housing” and the word “rent” with the words “rental rebate”. In the opinion of some people, these amendments may appear to be minor and a little pedantic, but their primary purpose is to ensure clarity and the use of language that makes sense to public housing tenants.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (4.52): Without wishing to appear pedantic, similarly the government is not inclined to support these amendments. Dr Foskey proposes to establish a new definition of public housing. The government simply does not believe that anything would be achieved by doing that. The concept of public housing, in particular subsection 8 (1), which I use by way of example, is well established and understood.
In the context of Dr Foskey’s proposal, the Housing Assistance Act provides that the functions of the commissioner are to administer, on behalf of the territory, programs and funding arrangements for the delivery of housing assistance in the ACT in relation to public rental housing and home ownership, income-related assistance, et cetera. The government is not persuaded that it is sensible to change definitions that are well established and well understood. For that reason there is nothing to be gained in supporting Dr Foskey’s amendment No 5.
The government also objects to amendment No 6 on the basis that it extends a new jurisdiction to the tribunal to consider rental rebates in certain circumstances. Currently, the Residential Tenancies Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to rental rebates. It is not a function of the tribunal and the government is not persuaded that it should
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .