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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 509 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

the working party was to canvass the issues but that voting on recommendations was not intended to determine the shape of the final legislation.

The concerns of the outvoted tenants were duly noted as they arose. A final report from the working party, however, highlighted recommendations supported by the majority of the group. Tenant concerns on pivotal issues-such as tenure, application of the legislation to pre-code leases, and the charging of excessive rentals-were buried in the body of the report. It appears that this report has provided the framework for the government's legislation.

I have no doubt that property owners are more adept at lobbying and at communicating their needs and concerns than are retail tenants. Perhaps this bill reflects that imbalance of power and influence more than it implies a government agenda to look after landlords. Either way, it is not a satisfactory outcome.

I am aware of a number of amendments to the bill from the government, and I understand that the government's amendments have largely come through a further round of consultation with various parties, particularly the Law Society. I will be supporting those amendments. I will also move a number of amendments myself seeking to control some of the damage that the government bill would deliver if unamended. I trust the government will seriously consider supporting my amendments and amendments to be put by Mr Rugendyke and the Labor Party.

My key interests are to guarantee fair and orderly processes of lease renewal, assessing market rent, and dispute resolution for as many small retail tenants as is possible. The government's bill, in the opinion of the Greens, has excluded too many small retail operations from the provisions of the bill. It ignores the consequences to those operations, including community associations and charities that will be left without protection by the passage of this bill. While the existing code does offer such tenants some protection, if the government's bill is passed unamended, these tenants will find themselves in a chaotic and entirely vulnerable situation.

There is also a lack of clarity in the code in regard to tenants who have had leases assigned to them by the preceding tenant. The courts, however, have found that new leases do commence on assignment. The government bill legislates against those findings. It denies tenants the coverage of a lease when tenancy arises from assignment. It encourages the thought that the government is doing all it can to limit the coverage of this bill.

When it comes to dispute resolution, the government bill does not apply equally to all tenants on all matters. We have instead a complex table which limits the application of this act to various dates, depending on the nature of the claim or dispute. It represents a rearguard action on behalf of landlords, one would imagine, to limit as much as possible the additional protection that tenants can get.

In its complexity, however, the government bill also ensures that tenants will find themselves spending considerable time and money on court battles and endless series of legal fights about the right to have a fight. We know such an approach will hurt the small players much harder than the large. In a very general sense the government, by importing the complexity of the Magistrates Court into this bill, and in deciding not to pursue the

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