Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3103 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

It is a real hypocrisy that the Labor and Liberal parties join forces to thwart the rights of the most marginalised retailers in the ACT. It is very disappointing that both parties have done so in the past and continue to do so. A couple of months ago, the major parties once again demonstrated their lack of support for local business by failing to support the Greens' motion calling for a moratorium on the expansion of retail space in town centres. With a stagnant retail market in the ACT, we cannot keep expanding retail space in Canberra. It does not make sense economically and it does not make sense socially. While it may be a one-off hit for the local economy, it will kill jobs in the long term and will further concentrate an already highly concentrated market in the ACT.

Anyone who walks through a town centre will realise the situation is quite extreme. For example, in the Belconnen Mall there have been over 100 business turnovers on the top floor alone in the past five years. Expanded trading hours are affecting small traders in the malls, but so are the exorbitant rents and the continual expansion of retail space. I recently read an article in the Retailer's Digest which reported that the ACT has the highest occupancy cost rate ratio to sales, with an average of 16.26 per cent or $975 per square metre. The centre with the highest average occupancy cost was charging some tenants up to 36 per cent of sales. For members' information, occupancy costs are defined as rents payable under lease, outgoings recoverable under the lease and, where applicable, promotion levies charged under that lease. I put it to members that if they really care about local businesses and the local economy they must support all measures that are going to help the plight of local businesses and not just the ones that they choose, and so not just ones that are politically expedient.

Mr Humphries mentioned mediators before, but my understanding is that Mr Humphries has not appointed additional mediators; rather, he has appointed additional magistrates. If there is a point to be clarified there, then I would like clarification on that point. In fact, my understanding is that there are no mediators.

MR OSBORNE (6.05): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of Mr Moore's very sensible and compassionate amendment. Having listened to Mr Humphries, the saviour of small business, the hero of the retailers within Canberra, I must admit I nearly choked. It was only a few months ago that he had them all here, his friends Norm and Manuel, sitting up the back there, churning out press releases saying that the Liberals are the real heroes, the only people that care about small business. Yet we have this stance on an amendment like this, which I think is quite sensible. Having listened to what Mr Humphries had to say, I do not think he really had any good reason not to support it, other than that he claims that we have no reason for it; we do not need it; the people, the tenants, are having no problems getting before the Tenancy Tribunal. As to what my friends on the other side are doing, I must admit that I really do not know, after hearing what Mr Wood had to say. I think you probably are a little embarrassed that you are not supporting this, are you not, Bill?

Mr Speaker, on the topic of the tenants from the Hyperdome, which the saviour was talking about, which JC was talking about, I had a fair bit to do with them. By the time they finally got before the Tenancy Tribunal, they had already been locked out; so, it did not really matter. I am really stunned, I am absolutely stunned, that the Government would not at least give people an easier passage to fight some of the leases that they are

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .