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 8339 Basically, this is doing exactly what the scrutiny committee recommended. It is the very reason I did not support the changes. When people have asked me why, I said, If you have a look at the scrutiny committee report you will see a paragraph which clearly gives good reasonsnot political reasons or I hate animals reasonsthat were thought through based on the information given to the committee by various people, including the department. The government then decided it would not listen to the scrutiny committee recommendations and just pass the legislation, so it was put through. The Attorney-General can jump up and give a point of order and say that I am wrongshe said on public media that there are some concerns about the legislation. If the government has concerns about sections 65A and 65Band we are now debating amendments that the government has brought forward today. If we pass that today and the government allows them to commence, does that mean sections 65A and 65B, which the Attorney-General is concerned about, will automatically be passed regardless of whether she has concerns? I find that a bit confusing. If you do not take it out then are you saying, Even though I have some concerns about it, we will pass it and will commence the bill under the guise of a Coronavirus requirement of the bill? Mr COLLINS: I support the amendment. I was on the Economic Policy Scrutiny Committee when this matter first came to the committee and was involved in the briefings given before the committee changed and became the Legislation Scrutiny Committee. These provisions concerned me and a number of other committee members at the time. I can assure you I am not a dog snob. Some people might call me that because I have cats, not dogs. This is an issue for a number of my constituents who contacted me. One suggested that we should all bring our pets in here. Given that we cannot bring in anything other than a glass of water, let us see how long that lasts. I agreed with making amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, which clarified the position of having pets in rental properties. To put the onus on the landlord, who invests their hard-earned money in properties to make them available for tenants, to prove why they do not want a pet in their premises is ridiculous. You can set out reasonable criteria in your legislation. If a landlord maintains a position of not wanting a pet, the onus should be on the tenant to go to the NTCAT to prove that their pet will not damage the property. A landlord must have the right to protect the property they are putting their money into and making available on the market for tenants to rent. I never supported the provisions as they were; they need reworking. It makes sense at this point in time, with everything that is going on, to withdraw them from the legislation, go back to the drawing board, look at them and come back with something more in step with encouraging landlords to invest their money in rental properties. Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to. The Assembly divided. Ayes 7 Noes 15 Mr Collins Ms Ah Kit Mrs Finocchiaro Mr Bowden Mr Higgins Mr Costa Mrs Lambley Ms Fyles Mr McConnell Mr Kirby Mr Mills Ms Lawler Mr Wood Mr McCarthy Ms Manison Ms Moss Ms Nelson Mr Paech Mr Sievers Ms Uibo Ms Wakefield Mrs Worden