I think you misunderstand what Bill said:
>In our circumstances, expulsion is completely inappropriate. My
co-operative has most of the usual legal remedies available to a
landlord, including eviction. The law here does permit a tenant to be
evicted for egregious anti-social behaviour.
>Of course we would have to be in a position to defend our actions in
court if the tenant resisted. In fact we have come up against this
issue a couple of times, and the co-op has had to issue warnings.
>But the expulsion remedy would be a way of avoiding the usual legal
protections available to a tenant, thus depriving a tenant of the
minimum legal rights that even a slum landlord must respect. Since
the co-operative's aims are to improve the security of its tenants,
rather than erode them, it is necessary in my view to completely
disavow the expulsion loophole. So that's what this co-op has done,
right from the start.
In other words the co-op retains the legal right to evict members on the usual grounds which landlords may use to evect tenants. (Though I would presume it would excercise those rights more reluctantly than your average landlord.) By not including "explusion", the co-op avoids adding a special process by which members may be evicted via a special contractually added process in which members have less protection (in practice) than a tenant normally has from a normal landlord. In other words it simply relies on the normal Australian landlord-tenant law rather than adding a special kangaroo court inside the co-op.