Territory Stories

Debates and Questions - Day 1 - 24 April 2020



Debates and Questions - Day 1 - 24 April 2020

Other title

Parliamentary Record 27


Debates and Questions for 13th Assembly 2019 - 2020; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 13th Assembly 2016 - 2020




Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory




Debates and Questions

Publisher name

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Place of publication


File type



Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

DEBATES AND QUESTIONS Friday 24 April 2020 8333 they do not want to lose their tenants. I needed to make it clear that you are not forced by this legislation to go down this path. Section 11B(2) says: The Minister may, by Gazette notice (a modification notice), do any or all of the following: (a) suspend or modify all or part of this Act and regulations made under it Why is that so broad? There is nothing to saywhy not identify what can be in a modification notice in this bill instead of having such a broad clause in there which says, basically, that the minister can do anything to the bill or the act? Ms FYLES: It is the standard. The advice I am given is that they all say that. Mr WOOD: The Opposition Leader has covered that pretty well in her questioning. I came here to listen as well. I will not repeat everything. I was learning on my feet today. It is complex, which is why it is sad that it has to be rushed to the point of doing it all in the one morning. It would have been good to sit down with the department and look at some of the issues in more detail. Be that as it may, we are going through the committee stage. Mrs FINOCCHIARO: On clause 6it appears to be, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the jurisdictional limit for tenancy claims in the Local Court has been reduced from $250 000 to $200 000, is that right? Ms FYLES: That was an old provision. It was $10 000 and is being raised to $200 000. Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Is that only for tenancy disputes in the Local Court? Ms FYLES: Retail tenancies were $10 000. In the jurisdiction of the Local Court that is lifted to $200 000. Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Which matches the level in the Supreme Courtno, it is $250 000. Sorry, I confused that. It went from $10 000 for residential tenancy matters and it will Ms FYLES: No. It went from $10 000 to $200 000 for the jurisdiction of the Local Court for retail tenancies so that the Local Court could have jurisdiction of those. Mrs FINOCCHIARO: In clause 7, who was consulted in relation to this clause and why was it considered necessary to add a mandatory alternative dispute resolution process to the business tenancies act? Ms FYLES: This is about supporting the negotiations required from the National Cabinet principle. We consulted with the NTCAT, the Local Court and the Supreme Court. Mrs FINOCCHIARO: You did not consult with businessesREINT, whoever it might need to be, or the Chamber of Commerce? Ms FYLES: We received feedback from those you listed and more broadly. In terms of this specific provision you asked about, the consultation was with those three jurisdictions. Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Was any consideration given to allowing parties not to have to do the mandatory ADR if they had already attempted it? Ms FYLES: The court has the discretion to hear that evidence to make a decision. They can also use their own mediator if they prefer not to use the court. That was in my speech. Mrs FINOCCHIARO: What role will the NTCAT play in the mediation conciliation process and would that come at a cost to the parties? Ms FYLES: The NTCAT will use a standard alternate dispute resolution processes. Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Will there be a cost? Ms FYLES: I am advised there are not usually costs through the NTCAT process.