Page 2656 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
but it is also true to say that in introducing this legislation we introduce a whole new set of rules into the community, and those new rules should apply as of now. We must be sure that those who are not protected and who need to be protected by this legislation can be.
There is no doubt that in serious cases of inequity the code of conduct provides for appeals to be made to the tribunal. That is in cases of harsh and oppressive conduct. Nevertheless, the tribunal should be able to deal with all disputes that come about. Clearly, the tribunal is not going to ignore a lease that exists, and nobody is saying that it should. But the tribunal should be able to make those decisions. As Mr Humphries pointed out, it ought not to be an automatic thing that people seek to go to a tribunal. There should be a series of processes, as indeed is provided for in this legislation. There is a mediation process which itself ought to follow negotiation between the individuals.
The second issue that I think is important is the issue of the right of renewal. When people talk about the right of renewal, they do not mean that a tenant, having got into a position, is going to stay in that place forever. What they are saying is that people have a right to plan and conduct their business in a way that will ensure their stability and their security. If the landlord requires a modification to premises and requires the withdrawal of a lease, compensation is payable to the tenant, who has the right to plan his business. This matter is yet to be adequately addressed. I believe that it will always be a matter of contention for the landlords, but it is important that we recognise the inequity between the power of the landlord and the power of a tenant and at the same time recognise the importance of goodwill to so many businesses.
The need for this legislation arises because there are some unscrupulous landlords in Canberra who are prepared to shift a tenant because they believe that they can suddenly get higher than market rent from a different or similar sort of tenant. Yet it is the current tenant who has contributed to the lift in the value of the land through their business. I think that is an issue that still has to be dealt with. Finally, I think the provisions relating to compensation, lease renewal costs, rent setting, outgoings, rent rebate for damaged premises, assignments, relocations and valuation intervals should all apply to existing leases so that action can be taken after the code of conduct has commenced. Those are the three primary concerns that we ought to be dealing with.
Let me make one further comment before I conclude. Mr Humphries said that we must be very careful to protect Canberra investment. Interestingly enough, when we talk about investment in property as opposed to investment in productive activity, there would be actually some quite considerable advantages for a majority of residents of Canberra although some disadvantages for people who have invested in land. If the value of property went down, that would make it much more accessible to other individuals within the market. When you talk about investment, you ought not to talk about just investment as though it were all the one thing. The difficulty is that Mr Humphries talks about investment as though investment in Canberra were simply one thing. What we are most interested in is investment in productive enterprises. That is where we really need our
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .