Page 3272 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (5.07): I support Mr Moore's amendments. Mr Moore's amendments do a number of things. Two of the amendments certainly go further than the Government's stated position. They are amendment No. 1, in terms of the definition of "key money", and amendment No. 6, which includes a wider range of matters under clause 6 of the Bill, particularly paragraph 6(c) about disputes. Certainly, amendment No. 2 includes a very clearly defined set of circumstances which are included under the definition of "lease". I think that is a sensible improvement to the Bill. It also takes account of current leases, as Mr Moore has indicated. I will come back to that point shortly.
One of the key things that Mr Moore's amendments do is that they take in a wider scope for the application of this particular Bill. Certainly, it is something that I have paid very close and keen attention to in the time that I have followed the negotiations and the process of debate with regard to this particular issue. We have a situation where owners and tenants are coming ever closer to agreement about how disputes between them can be resolved. It certainly seems to me that, while we are reaching that agreement and both groups are working cohesively together, it makes sense to then widen the scope of the coverage of the Bill. Certainly, Mr Moore's amendments - amendments Nos 4 and 5 - which talk about the coverage of the Bill being applied to both retail and commercial premises are very clear cut. So, we are seeking a very wide coverage with regard to this particular Bill. I think that is appropriate, given the very lengthy negotiations which have occurred with the Government and with key groups in relation to this issue over a very long period of time. I am disappointed that neither the Government nor the Opposition see their way clear to support these amendments, but I will certainly be doing so.
MR MOORE (5.10): Another part of the amendments I put forward removes what I perceive to be the rather arbitrary 300 square metres and 1,000 square metres inclusion in this Bill. I would be very interested to have the Minister explain to us just where the 300 square metres came from and just where the 1,000 square metres came from, because, so far as I am concerned, they are arbitrary figures. They really do not appear to be tied to anything.
It seems to me quite appropriate - and this is the import of amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 5 - that we talk about just retail premises and we talk about just commercial premises. If we are talking about just those premises, surely landlords and tenants ought to be able to resolve their dispute through an appropriate mechanism, as we are setting out in this Commercial and Tenancy Tribunal, no matter what the size of their premises. It really does seem quite strange to me that we should include the size of a premises. I must say that, in the briefings that I have had, I have not heard a satisfactory explanation that covers that. So, I will be very interested to hear what the Minister's explanation is in that circumstance.
Madam Speaker, I would just like to also respond to an interjection that was made much earlier - I think it was from Mr Kaine, but it certainly came from the Liberal benches - that this is a newfound interest for Ms Szuty and me. In fact, Mr Humphries, on my behalf, moved to remove from the notice paper a Bill on this very matter. I think it was just last week. I appreciate his doing that for me. It was an easy way to do it. But the reality is,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .