Page 3260 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (4.27): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Party supports the amendments that have been put forward today by the Government. In particular, I am pleased to see that the Government is prepared to make some movement on the question of retrospectivity. That was an issue of some concern to the Liberal Party. It was an element that greatly concerned us. It is, of course, a fact that any retrospectivity introduced in legislation in this place will attract criticism from this party, and almost invariably has. We remain concerned that these provisions should be dealt with in this fashion to affect the relationship entered into freely between parties prior to the date on which this legislation comes into force. I am pleased to see that the amendments to be moved later are such that the effect of the retrospectivity is reduced such that the Act applies only to leases entered into, renewed or extended on or after 1 January 1994 or in relation to a provision which was varied on or after 1 January 1994. That leaves, as I have made clear, some element of retrospectivity, but it is certainly an improvement on the present position.
I made it clear on the previous occasion that this Bill was being debated that the Liberal Party philosophically would be opposed to legislation which so significantly wanted to alter the freely entered into contractual relationship between individuals in the marketplace - between landlord and tenant. Philosophically, we are opposed to that kind of interference by government. We acknowledge the special case which exists here in the highly regulated Canberra marketplace, where it is simply not true to say that there is such a thing as a free market. At least in this key respect the marketplace is a severely limited one, and there is justification for providing for certain protections because those protections are not provided by the marketplace itself. Competition, for example, for places where businesses might be carried out is not as intense as it might be in a community like Sydney or Melbourne. If I am not satisfied with the landlord's treatment of me in a small shopping centre where I sell fish, I cannot go elsewhere with great ease. It is very difficult for me to serve that same marketplace without treating with that particular landlord. So, there are all sorts of reasons why this kind of approach is appropriate in these circumstances.
It is not, however, true to say that the Liberal Party would necessarily go down this path if it were left to its own devices. We have made it quite clear that we have seen the very considerable success, at least from our perspective, of the New South Wales legislation, which echoes this legislation before us today - legislation which was the result of agreement between the Building Owners and Managers Association in New South Wales and the Retail Tenants Association in New South Wales. The legislation resulting from that was passed through both houses of the New South Wales Parliament without dissent from any member of that parliament. Neither the Labor Party nor the Independent members of that Parliament expressed any opposition to that legislation. I must say that it would have been appropriate for us to have picked that up and used that as the basis for our own actions here rather than to have reinvented the wheel. I must say that the Liberal Party would very much prefer to see the New South Wales legislation used as a model here, and we indicate at this stage that we would be prepared to amend the ACT legislation to reflect the New South Wales position if we were to form a government after next year's election. That, I think, is a reflection of the fact that there is much value in the - - -
Debate interrupted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .