The COVID-19 Leg­is­la­tion Amend­ment (Emer­gency Mea­sures) Bill 2020 (Bill) was passed last night and received roy­al assent today.

The Bill intro­duces Part 11 into the Retail Leas­es Act 1994 (RLA) (which is a new part).

The new Part 11 pro­vides that reg­u­la­tions MAY pro­vide for cer­tain mat­ters for the pur­pose of respond­ing to the pub­lic health emer­gency caused by COVID-19 pan­dem­ic as follows:

a.

pro­hibit­ing the recov­ery of pos­ses­sion of premis­es by a land­lord in par­tic­u­lar cir­cum­stances;

b.

pro­hibit­ing the ter­mi­na­tion of a lease by a land­lord in par­tic­u­lar cir­cum­stances;

c.

reg­u­lat­ing or pre­vent­ing a land­lord from exer­cis­ing or enforc­ing anoth­er right in par­tic­u­lar circumstances;

d.

exempt­ing a ten­ant, or a class of ten­ants, from the oper­a­tion of the RLA or any agree­ment relat­ing to the leas­ing of premises.

A cou­ple of impor­tant points:

  1. No reg­u­la­tions have been enact­ed at the time of writ­ing this note.
  2. The reg­u­la­tions can only be made if Par­lia­ment is not sit­ting, and is unlike­ly to sit with­in 2 weeks after the reg­u­la­tion is made and, in the Minister’s opin­ion, the reg­u­la­tion is rea­son­able to pro­tect the health, safe­ty and wel­fare of lessees under the RLA.
  3. Reg­u­la­tions made under the above pro­vi­sion expire 6 months after the reg­u­la­tion com­mences, unless Par­lia­ment resolves an ear­li­er expiry.
  4. Part 11 applies not only to the RLA but to any oth­er Act relat­ing to the leas­ing of premis­es or land for com­mer­cial pur­pos­es”. It is there­fore pos­si­ble that the amend­ment results in a reg­u­la­tion being made under leg­is­la­tion which gov­erns com­mer­cial leas­es or leas­es not caught by the RLA.

More to fol­low as it comes to hand.


Kind regards

Mary Digiglio

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

More AI Slop in the Fair Work Juris­dic­tion: The Fight Back

In two recent cas­es both the Fair Work Com­mis­sion (FWC) and Fed­er­al Cir­cuit and Fam­i­ly Court of Aus­tralia (FCF­CoA) have…

NSW Build­ing (Approvals and Prac­ti­tion­ers) Bill 2026 Pass­es Parliament

The Build­ing (Approvals and Prac­ti­tion­ers) Bill 2026 (the Bill) passed through Par­lia­ment on Tues­day after­noon 4 August 2026. The Bill is…

AI Slop v Fair Work Com­mis­sion: The Scourge Continues

For all the talk of how extra­or­di­nary and trans­for­ma­tive arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence (AI) can sup­pos­ed­ly be, it con­tin­ues to be a scourge…

In the News

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, Busi­ness­es demand new pow­ers after worker’s hope­less’ AI claim costs employ­er”, pub­lished in the Aus­tralian on 23 August 2026

Busi­ness­es want new pow­ers because AI-assist­ed employ­ee claims are increas­ing the num­ber of weak or inac­cu­rate work­place com­plaints, forc­ing employ­ers…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, Has the NBI undone itself?”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 19 August 2026

Has the NBI weak­ened its own influ­ence in Aus­trali­a’s work­place and indus­tri­al rela­tions system?Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“Has…

Michael Byrnes appeared on Mon­ey News with Scott Hay­wood on 2GB, 3AW, 4BC and 6PR on 17 August 2026 to dis­cuss the use of AI by lit­i­gants in mat­ters before the Fair Work Com­mis­sion and oth­er tri­bunals and courts (from 29:15 to 36:45)

Michael Byrnes dis­cussed the use of arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence (AI), includ­ing gen­er­a­tive AI tools such as Chat­G­PT, by lit­i­gants in pro­ceed­ings…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information